On Wed, 2014-04-09 at 18:07 +0800, Ming Liu wrote: > On 04/09/2014 06:01 PM, Ming Liu wrote: > > On 04/09/2014 05:42 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: > >> On Wed, 2014-04-09 at 14:41 +0800, Ming Liu wrote: > >>> On 04/08/2014 06:03 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: > >>>> On Tue, 2014-04-08 at 10:27 +0800, Ming Liu wrote: > >>>>> On 04/07/2014 07:36 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: > >>>>>> On Mon, 2014-04-07 at 19:27 +0800, Ming Liu wrote: > >>>>>>> In most cases binconfig files conflict among multilib packages, > >>>>>>> to avoid > >>>>>>> that, use update-alternatives link *-config from real path with a > >>>>>>> PACKAGE_ARCH suffix. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Ming Liu <[email protected]> > >>>>>>> --- > >>>>>>> meta/classes/binconfig.bbclass | 65 > >>>>>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ > >>>>>>> 1 file changed, 56 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > >>>>>> This isn't going in, its complex and supports a minority use case. > >>>>>> binconfig should be dying out, not being extended and shored up like > >>>>>> this. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I'd also add this patch is buggy, its pure luck that > >>>>>> update-alternatives > >>>>>> is available at rootfs generation time since its not in a visible > >>>>>> dependency. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> So going forward I'd like to see patches which simply delete > >>>>>> binconfig > >>>>>> scripts. Where there isn't a .pc alternative we should be adding > >>>>>> them > >>>>>> and pushing them upstream. > >>>>> Did you mean we'd better remove all *-config scripts, insteaded by > >>>>> providing .pc files, and send the changes to all upstreams > >>>>> providing and > >>>>> using *-config? That seems a huge work and we need co-operate with > >>>>> a lot > >>>>> of projects. > >>>> Basically, yes, that is what I mean. I might be wrong but I don't > >>>> think > >>>> there are that many projects which don't ship .pc files now and just > >>>> have a binconfig as a backup. > >>> Yes, I also noticed that many of them are providing .pc files as > >>> well as > >>> binconfig as a backup, so I think there must be reasons binconfig > >>> remained in their projects, that might be for compliable considering, > >>> so I am not sure they would like to remove them from their projects, > >>> but > >>> I can try to ping them. Nevertheless, the conflicts still exist, we > >>> just > >>> leave them here so far? > >> I'm thinking we should start deleting the -config files at do_install > >> time where we know a good .pc file exists and remove the binconfig > >> inherit. If this causes any problem in software using the package, we > >> should fix those to use pkgconfig. > >> > >> Over time the conflicts will stop existing since the binconfig class > >> will not be used anywhere. > > Yes, that's a feasible solution, but it needs a lot of testing works, > > unfortunately, I am a little busy with my daily work recently and cant > > handle it parallelly, so I'd like to file a bug in Yocto, see if > > anybody like to take it, or I will do it when I can tear myself away > > from work later. > Seems we already have the defect record, and Qi Chen has been working on > that for a while, see the following: > https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2453
That bug suggests we have .pc files for all -config files. We would therefore next need to follow through and remove all the -config files entirely and just rely on the .pc files. We should open an enhancement request for that. Cheers, Richard -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
