On Fri, 2020-07-03 at 11:29 +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> On 03/07/2020 11.19, Richard Purdie wrote:
> > On Fri, 2020-07-03 at 09:36 +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
> > > Commit 992cec44 (coreutils: Move stdbuf into an own package
> > > coreutils-stdbuf) breaks package-qa when the single-binary
> > > PACKAGECONFIG is used:
> > >
> > > ERROR: coreutils-8.31-r0 do_package_qa: QA Issue: /usr/bin/stdbuf
> > > contained in package coreutils-stdbuf requires /usr/bin/coreutils,
> > > but no providers found in RDEPENDS_coreutils-stdbuf? [file-rdeps]
> > > ERROR: coreutils-8.31-r0 do_package_qa: QA run found fatal errors.
> > > Please consider fixing them.
> >
> > Does this problem exist for other packages in coreutils?
>
> What other packages? stdbuf is the only one being split to its own package:
>
> coreutils/8.31-r0$ ls -l packages-split/
> total 32
> drwxr-xr-x 4 ravi abcdef 4096 Jul 3 09:49 coreutils
> drwxr-xr-x 3 ravi abcdef 4096 Jul 3 09:50 coreutils-dbg
> drwxr-xr-x 2 ravi abcdef 4096 Jul 3 09:49 coreutils-dev
> drwxr-xr-x 3 ravi abcdef 4096 Jul 3 09:49 coreutils-doc
> drwxr-xr-x 2 ravi abcdef 4096 Jul 3 09:49 coreutils-locale
> -rw-r--r-- 1 ravi abcdef 48 Jul 3 09:49 coreutils.shlibdeps
> drwxr-xr-x 3 ravi abcdef 4096 Jul 3 09:50 coreutils-src
> drwxr-xr-x 2 ravi abcdef 4096 Jul 3 09:49 coreutils-staticdev
>
>
> > I'd suspect it
> > does in which case why is stdbuf special?
>
> Because it's the only util that gets special packaging treatment. Unless
> there's some magic 'please auto-split all utils to their own packages'
> that I don't know about and which we don't happen to set.
Sorry, I think I was confusing this with util-linux for some reason!
Just having one package here definitely helps.
> > Whilst I realise there is a problem here is the correct fix not:
> >
> > RDEPENDS_coreutils-stdbuf_class-target +=
> > "${@bb.utils.contains('PACKAGECONFIG', 'single-binary', '', 'coreutils',
> > d)}"
> >
> > ?
>
> [Well, the coreutils should be in the true branch of that.] I dunno, it
> creates a cyclic rdepends between coreutils and coreutils-stdbuf. Is
> that ok? Seems a bit ugly to me, even if it would work.
I hadn't realised there was already the reverse dependency. I think we
need to let the package exist in both cases so the two dependencies
need to reverse direction depending on whether single-binary is set.
So something like:
RDEPENDS_coreutils_class-target += "${@bb.utils.contains('PACKAGECONFIG',
'single-binary', '', 'coreutils-stdbuf', d)}"
RDEPENDS_coreutils-stdbuf_class-target +=
"${@bb.utils.contains('PACKAGECONFIG', 'single-binary', 'coreutils', '', d)}"
?
Cheers,
Richard
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#140263):
https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/140263
Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/75275273/21656
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub
[[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
