[PATCH v3] build: select optional libraries

[Bruce Richardson]

On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 10:48:50AM +0200, David Marchand wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 10:45 AM Bruce Richardson
> <bruce.richardson at intel.com> wrote:
> > > > > > I notice the change in behaviour for enabling the deprecated libs. Is there
> > > > > > any other change in behaviour for current users?
> > > > >
> > > > > The only change I see, is that this implementation breaks enabling
> > > > > deprecated libs via disable_libs.
> > > > > It may break existing developer build directory and maybe some
> > > > > packaging scripts, this is why I am a bit puzzled.
> > > > >
> > > > > Relooking at the disable_libs option current implementation, it seems
> > > > > backward to pass a disable_libs option when you want to build some
> > > > > deprecated library.
> > > > > It is more straightforward to request building libraries via
> > > > > -Denable_libs=<deprecated_lib> explicitly or -Denable_libs=*
> > > > > implicitly.
> > > > >
> > > > > But again, we may be breaking something for people who relied on this behavior.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > That's what I expected, and I think that is ok. I just wanted to check that
> > > > the change in behaviour was only for the deprecated libs case.
> > >
> > > Thomas, wdyt?
> > > It requires some release note, at least.
> > >
> > I am assuming this is not targetting this release though, right? Assuming
> > 23.11, we can put in a deprecation note informing of the change ahead of
> > time too.
> 
> I was hoping to get it in this release.
> But I am fine with postponing and announcing the change beforehand.
> 
Given the fact that we are likely changing behaviour, and the fact that the
deprecated libs makes it more complicated than the drivers one (since we
have always on, default on and default off cases to consider), I think it's
best we don't rush this.

/Bruce