> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] <openembedded- > [email protected]> On Behalf Of Marek Vasut > Sent: den 18 oktober 2023 21:35 > To: Martin Jansa <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; Fabio Estevam > <[email protected]>; Khem Raj <[email protected]>; Michael Opdenacker > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [oe] [meta-oe][PATCH 1/2] lvgl: lv-drivers: Allow empty > package > > On 10/18/23 21:05, Martin Jansa wrote: > > What issue does this actually fix? > > > > Is it related to > > https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/188383 ? > > Nope > > > I'm not fan of empty useless packages created just to make package manager > > happy when something else has unfortunate dependency on them. > > I have a downstream repo where a tool DEPENDS on lvgl and it builds an > SDK too, that's where it blows up on the empty package.
The reason I know of where this is needed is due to license aggregation. In our case we use the image manifest to determine the packages that went into the rootfs, and then gather the license information for those packages. If there is no package, e.g., for static libraries or header only libraries, then we miss the license information for those packages, unless we allow the empty packages to be created and add explicit runtime dependencies on them. :( I wish there was a better way to handle this, but so far using empty packages is the only solution I have. //Peter
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#105763): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-devel/message/105763 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/102044889/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-devel/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
