On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 5:45 PM Richard Purdie <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, 2020-01-08 at 12:14 +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote: > > So, the concept of "recursive dependency" sounds > > somewhat odd to me. > > > > I guess I am missing important use-cases. > > I'd like to know the reason why we need recrdeptask. > > FWIW your description sounds right. We need this flag for several > reasons. Firstly, it models the behaviour older bitbake had before we > switched to the full task model so it was partly there for > compatibility. > > Secondly, it does serve a purpose. For example, if you do "bitbake > core-image-sato" and have PACKAGE_CLASSES = "ipk deb rpm". > > In this case the user expects debs, rpms and ipks to all be generated > (the do_package_write_{ipk|deb|rpm} tasks) to be run for all recipes > involved in core-image-sato. > > Since we only build the rootfs for ipk, the debs and rpms wouldn't bet > triggered unless we have the do_build[recrdepends] on do_build. > > If you really wanted the other behaviour you would run "bitbake core- > image-sato -c image_complete" as in that sense the build task is > otherwise pointless. > > It is a weird dependency though, I agree.
Thanks for the reply. I see do_package_write_* works based on recrdeptask. I do not like this complicated feature honestly, but I am not skilled enough to propose any alternative solution, so I will live with it. -- Best Regards Masahiro Yamada -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
