Hi Peter, On Monday, 2 December 2024, 14:48:43 CET, Marko, Peter wrote: > Hello, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Christian Eggers <cegg...@arri.de> > > Sent: Monday, December 2, 2024 14:39 > > To: Marko, Peter (FT D EU SK BFS1) <peter.ma...@siemens.com>; > > peter.kjellerst...@axis.com; Yi Zhao <yi.z...@windriver.com>; Yi Zhao > > <yi.z...@eng.windriver.com>; openembedded- > > de...@lists.openembedded.org > > Cc: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; qi.c...@windriver.com > > Subject: Re: [oe] [meta-oe][PATCH 1/2] protobuf: add abseil-cpp to > > RDEPENDS > > > > Hi Qi, > > > > On Monday, 2 December 2024, 06:35:22 CET, Chen Qi via > > lists.openembedded.org wrote: > > > Before we rework the abseil-cpp and protobuf recipes, a possible > > > improvement for this patch is that we list the needed libraries in > > > RDEPENDS manually. > > > > my main concern was (as you already may have guessed) not having the full > > set of > > absl libraries in my rootfs, as only some of them are required. But I > > cannot tell > > which is the best option to achieve this. > > If you want full abseil-cpp in your rootfs, please use IMAGE_INSTALL for that. > Packages should pull only their real dependencies, not something you need for > other reasons. > You use-case seems to be to develop application with abseil-cpp library but > not installing it explicitly. > SDK images need to install (or depend on) additional packages compared to > release images. sorry, but I meant it the other way around:
"I do not like having the full set of abseil-cpp libraries in my rootfs only because I use protobuf in my application". Sorry for the confusion. regards, Christian > > Peter > > > > > regards, > > Christian > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > Qi > > > > > > On 12/2/24 13:21, Chen Qi via lists.openembedded.org wrote: > > > > I'll explain in more details what the problem is and why this patch is > > > > correct, given the current status of abseil-cpp recipe. > > > > > > > > In protobuf's abseil-cpp.cmake file, there's a hardcoded list of absl > > > > targets used by protobuf: > > > > https://github.com/protocolbuffers/protobuf/blob/main/cmake/abseil- > > cpp.cmake#L56 > > > > > > > > > > > > This value in turn is parsed and used to replace the > > > > @_protobuf_PC_REQUIRES@ in protobuf.pc.cmake. > > > > > > > > Here's the generated probobuf.pc file's contents: > > > > """ > > > > $ cat ../build/protobuf.pc > > > > prefix=/usr > > > > exec_prefix=/usr > > > > libdir=/usr/lib64 > > > > includedir=/usr/include > > > > > > > > Name: Protocol Buffers > > > > Description: Google's Data Interchange Format > > > > Version: 25.3.0 > > > > Requires: absl_absl_check absl_absl_log absl_algorithm absl_base > > > > absl_bind_front absl_bits absl_btree absl_cleanup absl_cord > > > > absl_core_headers absl_debugging absl_die_if_null > > > > absl_dynamic_annotations absl_flags absl_flat_hash_map > > > > absl_flat_hash_set absl_function_ref absl_hash absl_layout > > > > absl_log_initialize absl_log_severity absl_memory absl_node_hash_map > > > > absl_node_hash_set absl_optional absl_span absl_status absl_statusor > > > > absl_strings absl_synchronization absl_time absl_type_traits > > > > absl_utility absl_variant utf8_range > > > > Libs: -L${libdir} -lprotobuf > > > > Cflags: -I${includedir} -DPROTOBUF_USE_DLLS > > > > Conflicts: protobuf-lite > > > > """ > > > > > > > > Let me use "absl_hash" and "absl_absl_log" in the above list as > > > > examples. > > > > > > > > """ > > > > $ find ../../../abseil-cpp/20240116.2/packa > > > > ges-split/ -name "libabsl_hash.so.*" > > > > ../../../abseil-cpp/20240116.2/packages-split/libabsl- > > hash/usr/lib64/libabsl_hash.so.2401.0.0 > > > > > > > > ../../../abseil-cpp/20240116.2/packages-split/abseil-cpp- > > dbg/usr/lib64/.debug/libabsl_hash.so.2401.0.0 > > > > > > > > $ find ../../../abseil-cpp/20240116.2/packa > > > > ges-split/ -name "libabsl_absl_log.so.*" > > > > $ > > > > """ > > > > > > > > See? The current package splitting of abseil-cpp does not match what > > > > protobuf assumes. And I thinks protobuf's assumption is correct, > > > > because there's really a absl_absl_log.pc file generated by abseil-cpp. > > > > > > > > And there's the contents and location of absl_absl_log.pc: > > > > """ > > > > $ cat > > > > ../../../abseil-cpp/20240116.2/packages-split/abseil-cpp- > > dev/usr/lib64/pkgconfig/absl_absl_log.pc > > > > prefix=/usr > > > > exec_prefix=${prefix} > > > > libdir=/usr/lib64 > > > > includedir=/usr/include > > > > > > > > Name: absl_absl_log > > > > Description: Abseil absl_log library > > > > URL: https://abseil.io/ > > > > Version: 20240116 > > > > Requires: absl_log_internal_log_impl = 20240116 > > > > Libs: -L${libdir} > > > > Cflags: -I${includedir} -DNOMINMAX > > > > """ > > > > > > > > And there's the contents for the absl_log_internal_log_impl: > > > > """ > > > > $ cat ../../../abseil-cpp/20240116.2/packag > > > > es-split/abseil-cpp-dev/usr/lib64/pkgconfig/absl_log_internal_log_impl.pc > > > > prefix=/usr > > > > exec_prefix=${prefix} > > > > libdir=/usr/lib64 > > > > includedir=/usr/include > > > > > > > > Name: absl_log_internal_log_impl > > > > Description: Abseil log_internal_log_impl library > > > > URL: https://abseil.io/ > > > > Version: 20240116 > > > > Requires: absl_log_internal_conditions = 20240116, > > > > absl_log_internal_message = 20240116, absl_log_internal_strip = > > > > 20240116, absl_absl_vlog_is_on = 20240116 > > > > Libs: -L${libdir} > > > > Cflags: -I${includedir} -DNOMINMAX > > > > """ > > > > > > > > We can then find the absl_log_internal_conditions library: > > > > """ > > > > $ find ../../../abseil-cpp/20240116.2/packages-split/ -name > > > > "*absl_log_internal_message*" > > > > ../../../abseil-cpp/20240116.2/packages-split/libabsl-log-internal- > > message/usr/lib64/libabsl_log_internal_message.so.2401.0.0 > > > > > > > > ../../../abseil-cpp/20240116.2/packages-split/abseil-cpp- > > dev/usr/lib64/libabsl_log_internal_message.so > > > > > > > > ../../../abseil-cpp/20240116.2/packages-split/abseil-cpp- > > dev/usr/lib64/pkgconfig/absl_log_internal_message.pc > > > > > > > > ../../../abseil-cpp/20240116.2/packages-split/abseil-cpp- > > dbg/usr/lib64/.debug/libabsl_log_internal_message.so.2401.0.0 > > > > > > > > """ > > > > > > > > What does all above mean? It means that abseil-cpp is not splitted > > > > reasonably. This could be proven by the absl_absl_log.pc file as > > > > described above. > > > > > > > > So, given the current situation of abseil-cpp, Yi's solution is > > > > correct. Before abseil-cpp is re-splitted according to its pc files, > > > > which then could possibly lead to automatic parsing of the protobuf.pc > > > > file to add extra RDEPENDS automatically in protobuf recipe, we need > > > > to have Yi's solution. And we need to use RDEEPNDS instead of > > > > RRECOMMENDS (see the 'Requires' directive in corresponding .pc files). > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Qi > > > > > > > > On 10/1/24 20:42, Peter Marko via lists.openembedded.org wrote: > > > >>> -----Original Message----- > > > >>> From: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org > > <openembedded- > > > >>> de...@lists.openembedded.org> On Behalf Of Peter Kjellerstedt via > > > >>> lists.openembedded.org > > > >>> Sent: Tuesday, October 1, 2024 14:00 > > > >>> To: Yi Zhao <yi.z...@windriver.com>; Yi Zhao > > > >>> <yi.z...@eng.windriver.com> > > > >>> Cc: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org > > > >>> Subject: Re: [oe] [meta-oe][PATCH 1/2] protobuf: add abseil-cpp to > > > >>> RDEPENDS > > > >>> > > > >>>> -----Original Message----- > > > >>>> From: Yi Zhao <yi.z...@windriver.com> > > > >>>> Sent: den 25 september 2024 04:17 > > > >>>> To: Peter Kjellerstedt <peter.kjellerst...@axis.com>; Yi Zhao > > > >>> <yi.z...@eng.windriver.com> > > > >>>> Cc: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org > > > >>>> Subject: Re: [oe] [meta-oe][PATCH 1/2] protobuf: add abseil-cpp to > > > >>> RDEPENDS > > > >>>> > > > >>>> On 9/24/24 03:02, Peter Kjellerstedt wrote: > > > >>>>>> -----Original Message----- > > > >>>>>> From: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org > > <openembedded- > > > >>> de...@lists.openembedded.org> On Behalf Of Yi Zhao > > > >>>>>> Sent: den 22 september 2024 09:36 > > > >>>>>> To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org > > > >>>>>> Subject: [oe] [meta-oe][PATCH 1/2] protobuf: add abseil-cpp to > > > >>> RDEPENDS > > > >>>>>> 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=dd6421e65eb75c35a904f4b487ba022075035 > > > >>> ecc > > > >>>>>> 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" > > > >>>>> This defeats the whole purpose of splitting up the abseil > > > >>>>> libraries. What triggered this change? Was it an actual > > > >>>>> runtime error, or were you only looking at the output > > > >>>>> from pkg-config --libs protobuf? > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Since the .pc files are in the protobuf-dev package, which > > > >>>>> depends on the abseil-cpp-dev package, all abseil libraries > > > >>>>> should be available if you are actually building on target > > > >>>>> or with an SDK. > > > >>>> Our customer reported this issue. Here is his description: > > > >>>> The abseil libraries will be included in the SDK, but not on the > > > >>>> target. > > > >>>> The application is building with SDK. The yocto build is adding > > > >>>> protobuf > > > >>>> to the image (no explicit abseil libraries are added). If an > > > >>>> application > > > >>>> then are built using the SDK it can not be executed on target as > > > >>>> libraries are missing. > > > >>> 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. > > > >>> > > > >>> My suggestion would be to change it to: > > > >>> > > > >>> # Recommend abseil-cpp so that all its libraries are installed in case > > > >>> # protobuf is provided as part of an SDK. Everyone else should add > > > >>> # BAD_RECOMMENDATIONS += "abseil-cpp" to their configuration. > > > >>> RRECOMMENDS:${PN} = "abseil-cpp" > > > >>> RRECOMMENDS:${PN}-lite = "abseil-cpp" > > > >>> > > > >> I think that's also not the right way to do this. > > > >> Adding unnecessary stuff to release images to satisfy SDK needs is > > > >> wrong. > > > >> > > > >> I also wonder if the problem is not at the SDK level. > > > >> If you build an sdk, there is explicitly installed package base and > > > >> additional required dependencies of those packages. > > > >> The dependencies may not be complete and fully usable, only their > > > >> parts sufficient for the explicitly installed stuff is present. > > > >> Are the sdk users assuming that full abseil-cpp is installed and thus > > > >> using also parts not needed for protobuf? > > > >> The proper solution would be probably to include abseil-cpp > > > >> explicitly in SDK used in that way. > > > >> > > > >> Peter > > > >> > > > >>>> //Yi > > > >>>> > > > >>>>>> RDEPENDS:${PN}-compiler = "${PN}" > > > >>>>>> RDEPENDS:${PN}-dev += "${PN}-compiler" > > > >>>>>> RDEPENDS:${PN}-ptest = "bash > > > >>> ${@bb.utils.contains('PACKAGECONFIG', 'python', 'python3-protobuf', > > > >>> '', d)}" > > > >>>>> //Peter > > > >>> //Peter > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#114141): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-devel/message/114141 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] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
