OEcore/bitbake are moving to use the clearer ":" as an overrides
separator.
This is pass one of updating the meta-virt recipes to use that
syntax.
This has only been minimally build/runtime tested, more changes
will be required for missed overrides, or incorrect conversions
Note: A recent bitbake is required:
commit 75fad23fc06c008a03414a1fc288a8614c6af9ca
Author: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Sun Jul 18 12:59:15 2021 +0100
bitbake: data_smart/parse: Allow ':' characters in variable/function names
It is becomming increasingly clear we need to find a way to show what
is/is not an override in our syntax. We need to do this in a way which
is clear to users, readable and in a way we can transition to.
The most effective way I've found to this is to use the ":" charater
to directly replace "_" where an override is being specified. This
includes "append", "prepend" and "remove" which are effectively special
override directives.
This patch simply adds the character to the parser so bitbake accepts
the value but maps it back to "_" internally so there is no behaviour
change.
This change is simple enough it could potentially be backported to older
version of bitbake meaning layers using the new syntax/markup could
work with older releases. Even if other no other changes are accepted
at this time and we don't backport, it does set us on a path where at
some point in future we could
require a more explict syntax.
I've tested this patch by converting oe-core/meta-yocto to the new
syntax for overrides (9000+ changes) and then seeing that builds
continue to work with this patch.
(Bitbake rev: 0dbbb4547cb2570d2ce607e9a53459df3c0ac284)
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfield@gmail.com>
With the latest go version bump in oe-core export GO111MODULE is
on by default. Our build is not setup to use go modules, so we
disable it and avoid configuration errors:
no required module provides package ... : working directory is not part of a module
Signed-off-by: Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfield@gmail.com>
With oe-core commit c23f9e80492e4b [tcmode-default: use
go-binary-native by default], we must explictly call the proper
cross go binary, versus just the go-native variant.
These builds were working by luck, since the go compiler was capable
of building the target binaries previously (in its build-from-source
creation). We fixup the calls and we no longer see fpu build issues:
fatal error: gnu/stubs-soft.h: No such file or directory
7 | # include <gnu/stubs-soft.h>
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Signed-off-by: Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfield@gmail.com>
This recipe does not build for mips, so set COMPATIBLE_HOST to avoid that.
Signed-off-by: Joe Slater <joe.slater@windriver.com>
Signed-off-by: Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfield@gmail.com>
Recently in the oe-core the go.bbclass changed and requires the
defition of the GO_IMPORT variable. This was intended to simplify how
the compilation works with go packages and it is still a work in
progress.
This patch set makes the recipes compatible to generate the same end
result as before using the new go.bbclass from oe-core.
Any patches that were included in the recipes had to have the paths
adjusted because the new go.bbclass manipulates the notion of S to be
S + "src" + "$GO_IMPORT" internally for the purpose of unpack, patch
and compile.
Signed-off-by: Jason Wessel <jason.wessel@windriver.com>
Signed-off-by: Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfield@windriver.com>
Continue work to use go infra in oe-core instead of the support for go
previously found in meta-virt. This is a 1:1 drop in replacement and
removes one more go piece from meta-virt in favor of the common
support found in oe-core.
Signed-off-by: Mark Asselstine <mark.asselstine@windriver.com>
Signed-off-by: Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfield@windriver.com>
Rather than expliciting depending on go-cross-${TARGET_ARCH}, we
can now simply inherit the oe-core go bbclass. This gets us the
correct go dependencies and other variables properly set.
Signed-off-by: Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfield@windriver.com>
Since we are building a cross tool which produces something which is
ARCH specific we should stick to the <toolname>-cross-<arch> naming
convention. A variant of this patch has been floating around for a
while but with the changes around per recipe sysroots, distributed
builds, shared builds... we are best served to adopt this convention
now.
Signed-off-by: Mark Asselstine <mark.asselstine@windriver.com>
Signed-off-by: Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfield@windriver.com>
