Hmm I thought I gave some feedback to author but there is no follow up can you send a revert or perhaps the recommends suggestion
On Wed, Nov 6, 2024 at 7:54 AM Christian Eggers <cegg...@arri.de> wrote: > Hi Khem, > > I wonder why this patch has been applied although there were concerns > about it: > > regards, > Christian > > On Sunday, 22 September 2024, 09:36:17 CET, Yi Zhao wrote: > > Since commit[1], the libraries of abseil-cpp have been splitted into > > separate packages. When protobuf is installed into the image, only 48 > > abseil libraries are installed as runtime dependencies. But the output > > of 'pkg-config --libs protobuf' lists 66 abseil-cpp libraries are > > required. Add abseil-cpp to RDEPENDS to ensure that all required > > abseil-cpp libraries are installed. > > > > [1] > https://git.openembedded.org/meta-openembedded/commit/?id=dd6421e65eb75c35a904f4b487ba022075035ecc > > > > Signed-off-by: Yi Zhao <yi.z...@windriver.com> > > --- > > meta-oe/recipes-devtools/protobuf/protobuf_4.25.4.bb | 2 ++ > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/meta-oe/recipes-devtools/protobuf/protobuf_4.25.4.bb > b/meta-oe/recipes-devtools/protobuf/protobuf_4.25.4.bb > > index cc5204de4..354b3213a 100644 > > --- a/meta-oe/recipes-devtools/protobuf/protobuf_4.25.4.bb > > +++ b/meta-oe/recipes-devtools/protobuf/protobuf_4.25.4.bb > > @@ -106,6 +106,8 @@ FILES:${PN}-lite = > "${libdir}/libprotobuf-lite${SOLIBS}" > > # CMake requires protoc binary to exist in sysroot, even if it has > wrong architecture. > > SYSROOT_DIRS += "${bindir}" > > > > +RDEPENDS:${PN} = "abseil-cpp" > > +RDEPENDS:${PN}-lite = "abseil-cpp" > > RDEPENDS:${PN}-compiler = "${PN}" > > RDEPENDS:${PN}-dev += "${PN}-compiler" > > RDEPENDS:${PN}-ptest = "bash ${@bb.utils.contains('PACKAGECONFIG', > 'python', 'python3-protobuf', '', d)}" > > > > > On Tuesday, 1 October 2024, 13:59:56 CET, Peter Kjellerstedt wrote: > > Can we at least change the dependency to a recommendation so > > that it can be avoided via BAD_RECOMMENDATIONS? Because as it > > is, it penalizes everyone that use protobuf for the case where > > one provides an SDK with protobuf. > > > 2On Tuesday, 1 October 2024, 14:42:04 CET, Peter Marko via > lists.openembedded.org wrote: > > I think that's also not the right way to do this. > > Adding unnecessary stuff to release images to satisfy SDK needs is wrong. > > > >
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#113743): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-devel/message/113743 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/108587631/21656 Group Owner: openembedded-devel+ow...@lists.openembedded.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
