> Am 03.10.2015 um 20:37 schrieb Christopher Larson <[email protected]>: > > On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Andrei Kholodnyi < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> populate_sdk fails with following message: >> error: talloc-dev-2.1.1-r0 requires talloc = 2.1.1-r0 >> >> these packages are empty,remove them from the package list >> --- >> meta-oe/recipes-support/talloc/talloc_2.1.1.bb | 5 +---- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/meta-oe/recipes-support/talloc/talloc_2.1.1.bb >> b/meta-oe/recipes-support/talloc/talloc_2.1.1.bb >> index 89c390f..0c98bb6 100644 >> --- a/meta-oe/recipes-support/talloc/talloc_2.1.1.bb >> +++ b/meta-oe/recipes-support/talloc/talloc_2.1.1.bb >> @@ -20,12 +20,9 @@ EXTRA_OECONF += "--disable-rpath \ >> --with-libiconv=${STAGING_DIR_HOST}${prefix}\ >> " >> >> -PACKAGES += "libtalloc libtalloc-dbg libtalloc-dev pytalloc pytalloc-dbg >> pytalloc-dev" >> +PACKAGES = "libtalloc libtalloc-dbg libtalloc-dev pytalloc pytalloc-dbg >> pytalloc-dev" >> >> #ALLOW_EMPTY_${PN} = "1" >> -FILES_${PN} = "" >> -FILES_${PN}-dev = "" >> -FILES_${PN}-dbg = "" >> > > Question, why does this use libtalloc as the package names rather than the > default of talloc? In the common case of the debian bbclass inherited, > they'll get renamed based on the library soname anyway. Also, overriding > the PACKAGES list isn't ideal, since it means future changes to the default > value of PACKAGES will not be picked up here. Also, this packaging is worse > than default, as it doesn't have the -staticdev package.
In current situation you have to touch every recipe depending on talloc - not only in poky and meta-oe, also in any 3rd party layer. I agree to the rename, but at a better time (e.g. when jethro has been settled). Cheers -- Jens Rehsack - [email protected] -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
