On Thu, 2019-07-25 at 14:52 +0200, Jens Rehsack wrote: > Maybe one or the other has already seen the following message in > connection with modules::Build-based Perl modules: > ERROR: hash-fieldhash-perl-0.15-r0 do_package_qa: QA Issue: No > GNU_HASH in the ELF binary /home/sno/gpw-community-bsp/gpw-yocto- > platform/tmp/work/cortexa8hf-neon-poky-linux-gnueabi/hash-fieldhash- > perl/0.15-r0/packages-split/hash-fieldhash- > perl/usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.30.0/arm- > linux/auto/Hash/FieldHash/FieldHash.so, didn't pass LDFLAGS? > [ldflags] > ERROR: hash-fieldhash-perl-0.15-r0 do_package_qa: QA run found fatal > errors. Please consider fixing them. > ERROR: hash-fieldhash-perl-0.15-r0 do_package_qa: > ERROR: hash-fieldhash-perl-0.15-r0 do_package_qa: Function failed: > do_package_qa > ERROR: Logfile of failure stored in: /home/sno/gpw-community-bsp/gpw- > yocto-platform/tmp/work/cortexa8hf-neon-poky-linux-gnueabi/hash- > fieldhash-perl/0.15-r0/temp/log.do_package_qa.12168 > ERROR: Task (/home/sno/gpw-community-bsp/sources/meta-cpan/recipes- > devel/hash-fieldhash-perl/hash-fieldhash-perl_0.15.bb:do_package_qa) > failed with exit code '1' > > I think the reason is in > https://metacpan.org/source/AMBS/ExtUtils-CBuilder-0.280231/lib/ExtUtils/CBuilder/Base.pm#L319 > where the arguments from ldflags are thrown away.
That seems very likely, yes. > When those issues came up somewhere else than in meta-cpan, please > let me know (only open-source ^^). We should develop a fix like > https://github.com/meta-cpan/meta-cpan/commit/52ded0759daa3bff909bf5fac6d31c6bc52d713e > then ... > > For now - I think Alberto should receive a patch to use ldflags, too. > > I cannot decide how critic and important that is to make it into > perl-5.30.1 ... > When ExtUtils::CBuilder is properly fixed, no changed are required to > cpan_build.bbclass, aren't they? I'm not sure I understand exactly what you're asking. I think that if the question is whether we should fix this in the perl recipe itself with a patch, so we don't have to add workarounds all over the metadata, I think the answer is yes, we should. It would obviously be ideal if such a change were a backported on which was accepted upstream so we don't have to carry the patch forever! :) Cheers, Richard -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
