On Sun, Aug 27, 2023 at 11:23 PM Peter Kjellerstedt <[email protected]> wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Max Krummenacher <[email protected]> > > Sent: den 27 augusti 2023 10:10 > > To: [email protected]; Peter Kjellerstedt > > <[email protected]> > > Cc: Max Krummenacher <[email protected]>; Randolph Sapp > > <[email protected]> > > Subject: [oe][OE-core][Patch 0/1] Revert "bin_package.bbclass: Inhibit the > > default dependencies" > > > > From: Max Krummenacher <[email protected]> > > > > Hi > > > > With commit d1d09bd4d7 ("bin_package.bbclass: Inhibit the default > > dependencies") applied I'm getting a lot of these errors, i.e. qa > > does miss libc and compiler provided libs: > > > > ERROR: ti-img-rogue-umlibs-23.1.6404501-r2 do_package_qa: QA Issue: > > /usr/lib/libusc.so.23.1.6404501 contained in package ti-img-rogue-umlibs > > requires ld-linux-aarch64.so.1(GLIBC_2.17)(64bit), but no providers found > > in RDEPENDS:ti-img-rogue-umlibs? [file-rdeps] > > ERROR: ti-img-rogue-umlibs-23.1.6404501-r2 do_package_qa: QA Issue: > > /usr/lib/libusc.so.23.1.6404501 contained in package ti-img-rogue-umlibs > > requires libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.17)(64bit), but no providers found in > > RDEPENDS:ti-img-rogue-umlibs? [file-rdeps] > > ERROR: ti-img-rogue-umlibs-23.1.6404501-r2 do_package_qa: QA Issue: > > /usr/lib/libufwriter.so.23.1.6404501 contained in package ti-img-rogue- > > umlibs requires libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.14)(64bit), but no providers > > found in RDEPENDS:ti-img-rogue-umlibs? [file-rdeps] > > > > Reverting the commit makes the build pass, alternatively adding > > to depends in the recipe which is using the bin_package class > > fixes it too: > > > > DEPENDS += " virtual/${TARGET_PREFIX}compilerlibs virtual/libc" > > > > I'd prefer reverting removing the default dependencies over fixing > > each of the recipes which do use the bin_package class to actually > > install binaries running in the target user space. > > > > Any opinions? > > Bummer. I guess we will have to update our recipes individually > instead. :( > > > > > Max > > > > Max Krummenacher (1): > > Revert "bin_package.bbclass: Inhibit the default dependencies" > > > > meta/classes-recipe/bin_package.bbclass | 3 --- > > 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-) > > > > -- > > 2.35.3 > > //Peter >
>From the bugzilla entry [1] which added the feature and from the commit adding the class [2] it looks to me that the class should simplify adding binaries externally built for the target. Having the users of the class having to add the used libc / compiler shared objects to not trigger a qa warning seems really wrong to me. Additionally I don't see the advantage in not installing the base dependencies. Doing anything usefull in a build would need to build them anyway for some other recipe, so one would save creating a few hard links. Do I miss something here? So IMHO a recipe which inherits the class and really does not like the default dependencies should add the `INHIBIT_DEFAULT_DEPS = "1"`. Regards Max
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#186832): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/186832 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/100987453/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
