> Am 11.11.2015 um 19:10 schrieb Khem Raj <[email protected]>: > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 9:47 AM, Jens Rehsack <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Am 11.11.2015 um 18:34 schrieb Khem Raj <[email protected]>: >>> >>> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 1:11 AM, Jens Rehsack <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Am 11.11.2015 um 04:26 schrieb Khem Raj <[email protected]>: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Nov 10, 2015, at 1:26 PM, Jens Rehsack <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Since openldap isn't required, but used when found, allow qualified >>>>>> users to disable the requirement to save some space. >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jens Rehsack <[email protected]> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> meta-oe/recipes-support/libldb/libldb_1.1.17.bb | 5 ++++- >>>>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/meta-oe/recipes-support/libldb/libldb_1.1.17.bb >>>>>> b/meta-oe/recipes-support/libldb/libldb_1.1.17.bb >>>>>> index 44f061a..07a839d 100644 >>>>>> --- a/meta-oe/recipes-support/libldb/libldb_1.1.17.bb >>>>>> +++ b/meta-oe/recipes-support/libldb/libldb_1.1.17.bb >>>>>> @@ -4,9 +4,12 @@ SECTION = "libs" >>>>>> LICENSE = "LGPL-3.0+ & LGPL-2.1+ & GPL-3.0+" >>>>>> >>>>>> DEPENDS += "libtdb talloc libtevent popt" >>>>>> -RDEPENDS_${PN} += "libtevent popt libtalloc openldap" >>>>>> +RDEPENDS_${PN} += "libtevent popt libtalloc" >>>>>> RDEPENDS_pyldb += "python libtdb libtalloc" >>>>>> >>>>>> +PACKAGECONFIG ??= "ldap" >>>>>> +PACKAGECONFIG[ldap] = ",,openldap" >>>>>> + >>>>>> SRC_URI = "http://samba.org/ftp/ldb/ldb-${PV}.tar.gz \ >>>>>> file://do-not-import-target-module-while-cross-compile.patch \ >>>>>> " >>>>>> -- >>>>>> 1.9.1 >>>>>> >>>>>> This results from analysing why there's still an openldap ... >>>>>> >>>>>> I know, having no knob to disable ldap is dirty, but there is no such >>>>>> switch. >>>>>> Even more dirty, the switch in samba_4% is for embedded samba3 >>>>>> source-base only, >>>>>> the ldb bundled with samba4 just uses ldap when found. >>>>>> >>>>>> The patch relies on the idea of qualified users - those who know that >>>>>> they >>>>>> don't want ldap, disable it everywhere and whistle. >>>>> >>>>> it seems to not fix the problem completely, for exact reasons that some >>>>> other package may bring in openldap and stage it before this recipe is >>>>> built so you >>>>> have exact same problem again. I think if this package is patched to add >>>>> a knob to disable/enable openldap support explicitly then the fix will be >>>>> complete and I am sure upstream will also accept such a patch. >>>> >>>> NO! Please read carefully what "qualified user expected" means! >>>> >>> >>> I understand it well. no we don't want any user tiers here. We should >>> tend towards becoming user friendly >>> A qualified user is well equipped to maintain a patch with a >>> RDEPENDS_${PN}_remove in his layer. >> >> Both aspects have their pros and cons, but ... >> >>>> Forcing a dependency because someone else might introduce it either >>>> is insane - and adding RDEPENDS is just hiding the symptom, not >>> >>> its bringing determinism to build thats an important aspect. >> >> ... this argument beats them all. Nothing to add ;) >> >> Anyway - for determinism, openldap should be in depends then, not >> RDEPENDS, shouldn't it? > > it would translate into a build time dependency
Which is reasonable: <bluelightning> sno: RDEPENDS just means that it's going to be the packaging tasks of the recipe depending on those of the recipes producing the named packages, as opposed to DEPENDS where do_configure depends on do_populate_sysroot of the mentioned items Otherwise, build_1 (which has no other recipe requiring openldap) would build without openldap support but sucking in the package, build_2 would be build with ldap support. >>>> fixing the root cause. The root cause is, that waf is broken >>>> by design. >>> >>> such sweeping statements have to backed by reasoning otherwise no one >>> will take them seriously. IMO if you atleast report >>> this to waf community someone else might be able to help fixing >>> whatever the problem is. >> >> But shouldn't the samba maintainer do that? > > May be/maybe not I dont know, I even dont know whats broken in waf, > you did not explain that Having an option or not, in autoconf you can set ac_cv_HAVE_LDAP_H=no and the test results in "checking for ldap.h: no" - regardless the existence of ldap.h. waf doesn't have such an option, has it? Cheers -- Jens Rehsack - [email protected] -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
