On Wed, 2021-01-20 at 12:13 +1300, Paul Eggleton wrote: > On Wednesday, 20 January 2021 09:52:41 NZDT Richard Purdie wrote: > > I think the one remaining issue here is the need to change the DEPENDS > > of so many other recipes, likely not just here in this patch but in > > other layers. I think if util-linux DEPENDS on util-linux-uuid that > > might remove the need for those changes? That should still allow you to > > break the circular dependency problem? > > I have to admit to a gap in my own knowledge of how our build system handles > transitive dependencies. Of course the recipe sysroot should still get > everything it needs in it even if the dependency is only indirectly included, > in the back of my mind I have the impression that there are expectations that > all dependencies are explicitly called out and there are subtle issues if > they > aren't, but that could be a mistaken impression on my part.
I do wonder a little about that as well. As you say, sysroot dependencies should handle this. Anything linking against libuuid should also establish an package level runtime dependency through the linkage so I think this should work. We definitely don't explicitly list every dependency in every recipe. If this can work, it makes the migration path for people easier so I think its at least worth investigating/testing. Just while I'm thinking, the PACKAGES_remove also bothers me a little. Can we rearrange the variables so libuuid is only added in the libuuid recipe variant? [the idea being that since we control the metadata in oe-core, we shouldn't need to use _remove and can restructure so we don't need to, they're hard to undo. I know we do use it in places sadly even in core] > > I suspect libuuid should really be maintained/built as a separate > > software project given the dependency problems but that isn't my > > decision, we just have to deal with it. > > I agree that it would be better being separate, FWIW. > > > I am also worried this is going to break AUH and mean we have to > > manually handle this recipe but again, I suspect there is little to be > > done and we just have to deal with it. > > Could we perhaps fix the AUH to handle this properly? Do we need some kind of > mechanism to get it to always upgrade the two recipes together or is that > only > part of the issue? I don't know for sure that AUH won't handle it, I just worry about it. If it doesn't it definitely could be something we could fix there. I just don't know of anyone with the time to spend on what is a marginal corner case if it doesn't work. Cheers, Richard
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#147011): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/147011 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/78861332/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
