> From: [email protected] > <[email protected]> on behalf of Chen Qi via > lists.openembedded.org <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2026 18:53 > To: 정재윤/Task Leader/SW Platform(연)선행Platform개발실 Lightweight System Task > <[email protected]>; Richard Purdie <[email protected]>; > [email protected] > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] systemd: fix libsystemd LICENSE for multilib > > Hi Jaeyoon, > > I checked the related codes with PACKAGES_DYNAMIC in multilib.bbclass and > package.bbclass. > I suspect that it's the do_split_packages function in package.bbclass that > needs to be fixed. > This function may also need to use rename_package_variables on the > dynamically generated packages. > You can refer to the multilib_virtclass_handler_postkeyexp function in > multilib.bbclass. Note that LICENSE is already in "PACKAGEVARS". > Could you please check if the above method works? > > Regards, > Qi >
Hi Qi, Thank you for your review, and yes, it works! As you guessed, the package in trouble 'libsystemd' is being added to 'PACKAGES' later in do_split_packages. Calling rename_package_variables after that fixes the issue. By the way I found a side effect on libpam likely due to this fix: | ERROR: lib32-libpam-1.5.3-r0 do_package: QA Issue: lib32-libpam: Files/directories were installed but not shipped in any package: | /usr/lib/security/pam_env.so | Please set FILES such that these items are packaged. Alternatively if they are unneeded, avoid installing them or delete them within do_install. | lib32-libpam: 1 installed and not shipped files. [installed-vs-shipped] I don't get why it fails for now. Will take a look a bit more and also check if it's fine in other do_split_packages use cases. Best regards, --- Jaeyoon Jung Software Platform Lab. / Corporate R&D / LG Electronics Inc. > > ________________________________________ > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Jaeyoon Jung (LGE) > via lists.openembedded.org > Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2026 5:04 PM > To: Richard Purdie <[email protected]>; > [email protected] > Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] systemd: fix libsystemd LICENSE for multilib > > > From: Richard Purdie <[email protected]> > > Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2026 17:33 > > To: 정재윤/Task Leader/SW Platform(연)선행Platform개발실 Lightweight System > > Task <[email protected]>; [email protected] > > <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] systemd: fix libsystemd LICENSE for > > multilib > > > > On Tue, 2026-02-10 at 14:41 +0900, Jaeyoon Jung (LGE) via > > lists.openembedded.org wrote: > > > From: Jaeyoon Jung <[email protected]> > > > > > > Prepend ${MLPREFIX} to LICENSE for libsystemd. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jaeyoon Jung <[email protected]> > > > --- > > > meta/recipes-core/systemd/systemd.inc | 2 +- > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/systemd/systemd.inc > > > b/meta/recipes-core/systemd/systemd.inc > > > index daf37060d7..80a527dd25 100644 > > > --- a/meta/recipes-core/systemd/systemd.inc > > > +++ b/meta/recipes-core/systemd/systemd.inc > > > @@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ elaborate transactional dependency-based service > > > control logic. It can \ > > > work as a drop-in replacement for sysvinit." > > > > > > LICENSE = "GPL-2.0-only & LGPL-2.1-or-later" > > > -LICENSE:libsystemd = "LGPL-2.1-or-later" > > > +LICENSE:${MLPREFIX}libsystemd = "LGPL-2.1-or-later" > > > LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = > > > "file://LICENSE.GPL2;md5=c09786363500a9acc29b147e6e72d2c6 \ > > > > > > [[file://LICENSE.LGPL2.1;md5=be0aaf4a380f73f7e00b420a007368f2"]file://LICENSE.LGPL2.1;md5=be0aaf4a380f73f7e00b420a007368f2]file://LICENSE.LGPL2.1;md5=be0aaf4a380f73f7e00b420a007368f2"]file://LICENSE.LGPL2.1;md5=be0aaf4a380f73f7e00b420a007368f2" > > > > > > > The commit message doesn't explain why. > > > > In most cases the code should automatically handle MLPREFIX. Are there > > other similar issues elsewhere and should we be fixing something in > > the multilib class extension code instead? > > > > Cheers, > > > > Richard > > Yes, we have one in our meta layer that performs a check a bit deeper on > LICENSE for each package and it ends up with falling back to LICENSE with no > per-package override. > It's also an option for us to fix ours but I thought that a hardcoded > per-package override like this should also take account into multilib, like > other LICENSE:${PN} cases. > > > Best regards, > --- > Jaeyoon Jung > Software Platform Lab. / Corporate R&D / LG Electronics Inc. >
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#230988): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/230988 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/117733881/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
