Hi Richard, Le jeu. 16 nov. 2023 à 13:13, Richard Purdie <[email protected]> a écrit : > On Thu, 2023-09-28 at 23:56 +0200, Yoann Congal wrote: > > From: Fawzi KHABER <[email protected]> > > > > Remove superfluous DEV_PKG_DEPENDENCY = "" previously used to bypass > > ${PN}-dev package RDEPENDS on empty&non-built ${PN}. DEV_PKG_DEPENDENCY > > applies RRECOMMENDS now, all workarounds are not needed anymore. > > > > Related to [YOCTO #6839] and [YOCTO #8222] > > > > Signed-off-by: Yoann CONGAL <[email protected]> > > Signed-off-by: Fawzi KHABER <[email protected]> > > --- > > meta/recipes-connectivity/bind/bind_9.18.19.bb | 1 - > > meta/recipes-core/musl/bsd-headers.bb | 1 - > > meta/recipes-core/musl/libssp-nonshared.bb | 1 - > > meta/recipes-core/newlib/newlib_git.bb | 3 --- > > meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/libgcc-common.inc | 4 ---- > > meta/recipes-devtools/python/python3_3.11.5.bb | 1 - > > meta/recipes-graphics/mesa/libglu_9.0.3.bb | 3 --- > > meta/recipes-graphics/mesa/mesa.inc | 3 --- > > meta/recipes-graphics/xorg-lib/libpthread-stubs_0.5.bb | 1 - > > meta/recipes-graphics/xorg-lib/xtrans_1.5.0.bb | 1 - > > meta/recipes-graphics/xorg-proto/xcb-proto_1.16.0.bb | 1 - > > meta/recipes-graphics/xorg-proto/xorgproto_2023.2.bb | 3 +-- > > meta/recipes-graphics/xorg-util/util-macros_1.20.0.bb | 3 +-- > > meta/recipes-kernel/linux-libc-headers/linux-libc-headers.inc | 1 - > > meta/recipes-kernel/make-mod-scripts/make-mod-scripts_1.0.bb | 1 - > > meta/recipes-support/argp-standalone/argp-standalone_1.4.1.bb | 1 - > > 16 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-) > > Firstly, sorry for taking as long to get to this.
That is fine! This was sent really late in the dev cycle wrt the release... > The patch 1/2 looks > good and I'm happy to merge that. It does set us on the patch I > outlined originally so I think we're good there. Awesome, thanks! > I'm less sure about this second one. It appears to remove variables > which do actively change things and once they are removed, warnings > from the previous patch show up. > > I therefore think the second patch is incorrect and doesn't move us in > the direction we want? I would need to look into it to to confirm this but from your plan : https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6839#c7 a) was to make warnings appear b) fixing the warnings We are now between a) and b) : warnings but no fix. Since the patch I finally integrated the fact that the CI must be warning free. So I guess, I'll come back with a series with this patch (a) _and the fixes (b)_. Does that sound good? > Cheers, > > Richard Regards, -- Yoann Congal Smile ECS - Tech expert
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#190794): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/190794 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/101647340/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
