Re: [oe][OE-core][Patch 0/1] Revert "bin_package.bbclass: Inhibit the default dependencies"
> -Original Message-
> From: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> On Behalf Of Peter Kjellerstedt
> Sent: den 31 augusti 2023 19:28
> To: Ryan Eatmon ; Max Krummenacher ;
> openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> Cc: Max Krummenacher ; Randolph Sapp
>
> Subject: Re: [oe][OE-core][Patch 0/1] Revert "bin_package.bbclass: Inhibit
> the default dependencies"
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Ryan Eatmon
> > Sent: den 28 augusti 2023 19:10
> > To: Peter Kjellerstedt ; Max Krummenacher
> > ; openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> > Cc: Max Krummenacher ; Randolph Sapp
> >
> > Subject: Re: [oe][OE-core][Patch 0/1] Revert "bin_package.bbclass: Inhibit
> > the default dependencies"
> >
> > On 8/27/2023 4:23 PM, Peter Kjellerstedt wrote:
> > >> -Original Message-
> > >> From: Max Krummenacher
> > >> Sent: den 27 augusti 2023 10:10
> > >> To: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Peter Kjellerstedt
> > >>
> > >> Cc: Max Krummenacher ; Randolph Sapp
> > >>
> > >> Subject: [oe][OE-core][Patch 0/1] Revert "bin_package.bbclass: Inhibit
> > >> the
> > >> default dependencies"
> > >>
> > >> From: Max Krummenacher
> > >>
> > >> Hi
> > >>
> > >> With commit d1d09bd4d7 ("bin_package.bbclass: Inhibit the default
> > >> dependencies") applied I'm getting a lot of these errors, i.e. qa
> > >> does miss libc and compiler provided libs:
> > >>
> > >> ERROR: ti-img-rogue-umlibs-23.1.6404501-r2 do_package_qa: QA Issue:
> > >> /usr/lib/libusc.so.23.1.6404501 contained in package ti-img-rogue-umlibs
> > >> requires ld-linux-aarch64.so.1(GLIBC_2.17)(64bit), but no providers found
> > >> in RDEPENDS:ti-img-rogue-umlibs? [file-rdeps]
> > >> ERROR: ti-img-rogue-umlibs-23.1.6404501-r2 do_package_qa: QA Issue:
> > >> /usr/lib/libusc.so.23.1.6404501 contained in package ti-img-rogue-umlibs
> > >> requires libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.17)(64bit), but no providers found in
> > >> RDEPENDS:ti-img-rogue-umlibs? [file-rdeps]
> > >> ERROR: ti-img-rogue-umlibs-23.1.6404501-r2 do_package_qa: QA Issue:
> > >> /usr/lib/libufwriter.so.23.1.6404501 contained in package ti-img-rogue-
> > >> umlibs requires libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.14)(64bit), but no providers
> > >> found in RDEPENDS:ti-img-rogue-umlibs? [file-rdeps]
> > >>
> > >> Reverting the commit makes the build pass, alternatively adding
> > >> to depends in the recipe which is using the bin_package class
> > >> fixes it too:
> > >>
> > >> DEPENDS += " virtual/${TARGET_PREFIX}compilerlibs virtual/libc"
> > >>
> > >> I'd prefer reverting removing the default dependencies over fixing
> > >> each of the recipes which do use the bin_package class to actually
> > >> install binaries running in the target user space.
> > >>
> > >> Any opinions?
> > >
> > > Bummer. I guess we will have to update our recipes individually
> > > instead. :(
> >
> > Was there some issue that your patch was seeking to solve? There was
> > not much explanation in your patch or discussion about it on the mailing
> > list before it was accepted.
> >
> > Or did this just seem like something to do since this class doesn't
> > build anything?
>
> It just seemed logical that since nothing is built, there should be
> no need for the compiler. I did, however, miss the potential need for
> the runtime libraries.
>
> > Just looking for background.
> >
> > Your commit is also the source of another error with this the same
> > ti-img-rogue-umlibs recipe that I've been trying to track down all last
> > week. Max just beat me to finding it.
> >
> > I'm voting to revert your patch unless there is compelling reason for
> > your patch.
>
> If it was not obvious from my response above, I am in favor of reverting
> my change since the errors reported by Max obviously was not part of my
> use case and did not affect any of our recipes.
>
> //Peter
Please apply Max' revert. I thought it was applied back in August when
this was discussed, but it apparently never happened.
//Peter
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#188795):
https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/188795
Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/100987453/21656
Group Owner: openembedded-core+ow...@lists.openembedded.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [oe][OE-core][Patch 0/1] Revert "bin_package.bbclass: Inhibit the default dependencies"
> -Original Message-
> From: Ryan Eatmon
> Sent: den 28 augusti 2023 19:10
> To: Peter Kjellerstedt ; Max Krummenacher
> ; openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> Cc: Max Krummenacher ; Randolph Sapp
>
> Subject: Re: [oe][OE-core][Patch 0/1] Revert "bin_package.bbclass: Inhibit
> the default dependencies"
>
> On 8/27/2023 4:23 PM, Peter Kjellerstedt wrote:
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From: Max Krummenacher
> >> Sent: den 27 augusti 2023 10:10
> >> To: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Peter Kjellerstedt
> >>
> >> Cc: Max Krummenacher ; Randolph Sapp
> >>
> >> Subject: [oe][OE-core][Patch 0/1] Revert "bin_package.bbclass: Inhibit the
> >> default dependencies"
> >>
> >> From: Max Krummenacher
> >>
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> With commit d1d09bd4d7 ("bin_package.bbclass: Inhibit the default
> >> dependencies") applied I'm getting a lot of these errors, i.e. qa
> >> does miss libc and compiler provided libs:
> >>
> >> ERROR: ti-img-rogue-umlibs-23.1.6404501-r2 do_package_qa: QA Issue:
> >> /usr/lib/libusc.so.23.1.6404501 contained in package ti-img-rogue-umlibs
> >> requires ld-linux-aarch64.so.1(GLIBC_2.17)(64bit), but no providers found
> >> in RDEPENDS:ti-img-rogue-umlibs? [file-rdeps]
> >> ERROR: ti-img-rogue-umlibs-23.1.6404501-r2 do_package_qa: QA Issue:
> >> /usr/lib/libusc.so.23.1.6404501 contained in package ti-img-rogue-umlibs
> >> requires libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.17)(64bit), but no providers found in
> >> RDEPENDS:ti-img-rogue-umlibs? [file-rdeps]
> >> ERROR: ti-img-rogue-umlibs-23.1.6404501-r2 do_package_qa: QA Issue:
> >> /usr/lib/libufwriter.so.23.1.6404501 contained in package ti-img-rogue-
> >> umlibs requires libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.14)(64bit), but no providers
> >> found in RDEPENDS:ti-img-rogue-umlibs? [file-rdeps]
> >>
> >> Reverting the commit makes the build pass, alternatively adding
> >> to depends in the recipe which is using the bin_package class
> >> fixes it too:
> >>
> >> DEPENDS += " virtual/${TARGET_PREFIX}compilerlibs virtual/libc"
> >>
> >> I'd prefer reverting removing the default dependencies over fixing
> >> each of the recipes which do use the bin_package class to actually
> >> install binaries running in the target user space.
> >>
> >> Any opinions?
> >
> > Bummer. I guess we will have to update our recipes individually
> > instead. :(
>
> Was there some issue that your patch was seeking to solve? There was
> not much explanation in your patch or discussion about it on the mailing
> list before it was accepted.
>
> Or did this just seem like something to do since this class doesn't
> build anything?
It just seemed logical that since nothing is built, there should be
no need for the compiler. I did, however, miss the potential need for
the runtime libraries.
> Just looking for background.
>
> Your commit is also the source of another error with this the same
> ti-img-rogue-umlibs recipe that I've been trying to track down all last
> week. Max just beat me to finding it.
>
> I'm voting to revert your patch unless there is compelling reason for
> your patch.
If it was not obvious from my response above, I am in favor of reverting
my change since the errors reported by Max obviously was not part of my
use case and did not affect any of our recipes.
//Peter
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#186984):
https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/186984
Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/100987453/21656
Group Owner: openembedded-core+ow...@lists.openembedded.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [oe][OE-core][Patch 0/1] Revert "bin_package.bbclass: Inhibit the default dependencies"
On 8/28/23 14:45, Randolph Sapp wrote:
On 8/28/23 11:22, Randolph Sapp wrote:
On 8/28/23 10:09, Max Krummenacher wrote:
On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 5:01 PM Max Krummenacher via
lists.openembedded.org
wrote:
On Sun, Aug 27, 2023 at 11:23 PM Peter Kjellerstedt
wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Max Krummenacher
Sent: den 27 augusti 2023 10:10
To: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Peter Kjellerstedt
Cc: Max Krummenacher ; Randolph Sapp
Subject: [oe][OE-core][Patch 0/1] Revert "bin_package.bbclass:
Inhibit the
default dependencies"
From: Max Krummenacher
Hi
With commit d1d09bd4d7 ("bin_package.bbclass: Inhibit the default
dependencies") applied I'm getting a lot of these errors, i.e. qa
does miss libc and compiler provided libs:
ERROR: ti-img-rogue-umlibs-23.1.6404501-r2 do_package_qa: QA Issue:
/usr/lib/libusc.so.23.1.6404501 contained in package
ti-img-rogue-umlibs
requires ld-linux-aarch64.so.1(GLIBC_2.17)(64bit), but no
providers found
in RDEPENDS:ti-img-rogue-umlibs? [file-rdeps]
ERROR: ti-img-rogue-umlibs-23.1.6404501-r2 do_package_qa: QA Issue:
/usr/lib/libusc.so.23.1.6404501 contained in package
ti-img-rogue-umlibs
requires libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.17)(64bit), but no providers found in
RDEPENDS:ti-img-rogue-umlibs? [file-rdeps]
ERROR: ti-img-rogue-umlibs-23.1.6404501-r2 do_package_qa: QA Issue:
/usr/lib/libufwriter.so.23.1.6404501 contained in package
ti-img-rogue-
umlibs requires libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.14)(64bit), but no
providers
found in RDEPENDS:ti-img-rogue-umlibs? [file-rdeps]
Reverting the commit makes the build pass, alternatively adding
to depends in the recipe which is using the bin_package class
fixes it too:
DEPENDS += " virtual/${TARGET_PREFIX}compilerlibs virtual/libc"
I'd prefer reverting removing the default dependencies over fixing
each of the recipes which do use the bin_package class to actually
install binaries running in the target user space.
Any opinions?
Bummer. I guess we will have to update our recipes individually
instead. :(
From the bugzilla entry [1] which added the feature and from the
commit
adding the class [2] it looks to me that the class should simplify
adding
binaries externally built for the target.
Having the users of the class having to add the used libc / compiler
shared objects to not trigger a qa warning seems really wrong to me.
Additionally I don't see the advantage in not installing the base
dependencies. Doing anything usefull in a build would need to build
them anyway for some other recipe, so one would save creating a few
hard links. Do I miss something here?
So IMHO a recipe which inherits the class and really does not like the
default dependencies should add the `INHIBIT_DEFAULT_DEPS = "1"`.
Adding the missing links, sorry about that:
[1] https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1592
[2]
https://www.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/2012-September/067782.html
Thanks for bringing this to light Max. I have no opinion in this. I
understand not wanting to implicitly depending on anything. After all,
explicit is always nice for those that don't want to navigate the full
include chain to figure out recipe dependencies. It's also nicer for a
minimal build (though arguably not in this case because these are core
packages we're depending on).
If this is going to be the standard moving forward please let me know
so I can update this recipe accordingly.
Scratch that, I have an opinion now. Removing hidden base package
dependencies that QA steps explicitly rely is a bad idea. Please revert
this.
Or at least have the insane.bbclass class introduce it's required
dependencies itself, as that seems more logical than having a generic
base group anyway.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#186846):
https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/186846
Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/100987453/21656
Group Owner: openembedded-core+ow...@lists.openembedded.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [oe][OE-core][Patch 0/1] Revert "bin_package.bbclass: Inhibit the default dependencies"
On 8/28/23 11:22, Randolph Sapp wrote:
On 8/28/23 10:09, Max Krummenacher wrote:
On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 5:01 PM Max Krummenacher via
lists.openembedded.org
wrote:
On Sun, Aug 27, 2023 at 11:23 PM Peter Kjellerstedt
wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Max Krummenacher
Sent: den 27 augusti 2023 10:10
To: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Peter Kjellerstedt
Cc: Max Krummenacher ; Randolph Sapp
Subject: [oe][OE-core][Patch 0/1] Revert "bin_package.bbclass:
Inhibit the
default dependencies"
From: Max Krummenacher
Hi
With commit d1d09bd4d7 ("bin_package.bbclass: Inhibit the default
dependencies") applied I'm getting a lot of these errors, i.e. qa
does miss libc and compiler provided libs:
ERROR: ti-img-rogue-umlibs-23.1.6404501-r2 do_package_qa: QA Issue:
/usr/lib/libusc.so.23.1.6404501 contained in package
ti-img-rogue-umlibs
requires ld-linux-aarch64.so.1(GLIBC_2.17)(64bit), but no providers
found
in RDEPENDS:ti-img-rogue-umlibs? [file-rdeps]
ERROR: ti-img-rogue-umlibs-23.1.6404501-r2 do_package_qa: QA Issue:
/usr/lib/libusc.so.23.1.6404501 contained in package
ti-img-rogue-umlibs
requires libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.17)(64bit), but no providers found in
RDEPENDS:ti-img-rogue-umlibs? [file-rdeps]
ERROR: ti-img-rogue-umlibs-23.1.6404501-r2 do_package_qa: QA Issue:
/usr/lib/libufwriter.so.23.1.6404501 contained in package
ti-img-rogue-
umlibs requires libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.14)(64bit), but no
providers
found in RDEPENDS:ti-img-rogue-umlibs? [file-rdeps]
Reverting the commit makes the build pass, alternatively adding
to depends in the recipe which is using the bin_package class
fixes it too:
DEPENDS += " virtual/${TARGET_PREFIX}compilerlibs virtual/libc"
I'd prefer reverting removing the default dependencies over fixing
each of the recipes which do use the bin_package class to actually
install binaries running in the target user space.
Any opinions?
Bummer. I guess we will have to update our recipes individually
instead. :(
From the bugzilla entry [1] which added the feature and from the commit
adding the class [2] it looks to me that the class should simplify
adding
binaries externally built for the target.
Having the users of the class having to add the used libc / compiler
shared objects to not trigger a qa warning seems really wrong to me.
Additionally I don't see the advantage in not installing the base
dependencies. Doing anything usefull in a build would need to build
them anyway for some other recipe, so one would save creating a few
hard links. Do I miss something here?
So IMHO a recipe which inherits the class and really does not like the
default dependencies should add the `INHIBIT_DEFAULT_DEPS = "1"`.
Adding the missing links, sorry about that:
[1] https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1592
[2]
https://www.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/2012-September/067782.html
Thanks for bringing this to light Max. I have no opinion in this. I
understand not wanting to implicitly depending on anything. After all,
explicit is always nice for those that don't want to navigate the full
include chain to figure out recipe dependencies. It's also nicer for a
minimal build (though arguably not in this case because these are core
packages we're depending on).
If this is going to be the standard moving forward please let me know so
I can update this recipe accordingly.
Scratch that, I have an opinion now. Removing hidden base package
dependencies that QA steps explicitly rely is a bad idea. Please revert
this.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#186845):
https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/186845
Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/100987453/21656
Group Owner: openembedded-core+ow...@lists.openembedded.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [oe][OE-core][Patch 0/1] Revert "bin_package.bbclass: Inhibit the default dependencies"
On 8/27/2023 4:23 PM, Peter Kjellerstedt wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Max Krummenacher
Sent: den 27 augusti 2023 10:10
To: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Peter Kjellerstedt
Cc: Max Krummenacher ; Randolph Sapp
Subject: [oe][OE-core][Patch 0/1] Revert "bin_package.bbclass: Inhibit the
default dependencies"
From: Max Krummenacher
Hi
With commit d1d09bd4d7 ("bin_package.bbclass: Inhibit the default
dependencies") applied I'm getting a lot of these errors, i.e. qa
does miss libc and compiler provided libs:
ERROR: ti-img-rogue-umlibs-23.1.6404501-r2 do_package_qa: QA Issue:
/usr/lib/libusc.so.23.1.6404501 contained in package ti-img-rogue-umlibs
requires ld-linux-aarch64.so.1(GLIBC_2.17)(64bit), but no providers found
in RDEPENDS:ti-img-rogue-umlibs? [file-rdeps]
ERROR: ti-img-rogue-umlibs-23.1.6404501-r2 do_package_qa: QA Issue:
/usr/lib/libusc.so.23.1.6404501 contained in package ti-img-rogue-umlibs
requires libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.17)(64bit), but no providers found in
RDEPENDS:ti-img-rogue-umlibs? [file-rdeps]
ERROR: ti-img-rogue-umlibs-23.1.6404501-r2 do_package_qa: QA Issue:
/usr/lib/libufwriter.so.23.1.6404501 contained in package ti-img-rogue-
umlibs requires libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.14)(64bit), but no providers
found in RDEPENDS:ti-img-rogue-umlibs? [file-rdeps]
Reverting the commit makes the build pass, alternatively adding
to depends in the recipe which is using the bin_package class
fixes it too:
DEPENDS += " virtual/${TARGET_PREFIX}compilerlibs virtual/libc"
I'd prefer reverting removing the default dependencies over fixing
each of the recipes which do use the bin_package class to actually
install binaries running in the target user space.
Any opinions?
Bummer. I guess we will have to update our recipes individually
instead. :(
Was there some issue that your patch was seeking to solve? There was
not much explanation in your patch or discussion about it on the mailing
list before it was accepted.
Or did this just seem like something to do since this class doesn't
build anything?
Just looking for background.
Your commit is also the source of another error with this the same
ti-img-rogue-umlibs recipe that I've been trying to track down all last
week. Max just beat me to finding it.
I'm voting to revert your patch unless there is compelling reason for
your patch.
Max
Max Krummenacher (1):
Revert "bin_package.bbclass: Inhibit the default dependencies"
meta/classes-recipe/bin_package.bbclass | 3 ---
1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
--
2.35.3
//Peter
--
Ryan Eatmonreat...@ti.com
-
Texas Instruments, Inc. - LCPD - MGTS
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#186838):
https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/186838
Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/100987453/21656
Group Owner: openembedded-core+ow...@lists.openembedded.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [oe][OE-core][Patch 0/1] Revert "bin_package.bbclass: Inhibit the default dependencies"
On 8/28/23 10:09, Max Krummenacher wrote:
On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 5:01 PM Max Krummenacher via
lists.openembedded.org
wrote:
On Sun, Aug 27, 2023 at 11:23 PM Peter Kjellerstedt
wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Max Krummenacher
Sent: den 27 augusti 2023 10:10
To: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Peter Kjellerstedt
Cc: Max Krummenacher ; Randolph Sapp
Subject: [oe][OE-core][Patch 0/1] Revert "bin_package.bbclass: Inhibit the
default dependencies"
From: Max Krummenacher
Hi
With commit d1d09bd4d7 ("bin_package.bbclass: Inhibit the default
dependencies") applied I'm getting a lot of these errors, i.e. qa
does miss libc and compiler provided libs:
ERROR: ti-img-rogue-umlibs-23.1.6404501-r2 do_package_qa: QA Issue:
/usr/lib/libusc.so.23.1.6404501 contained in package ti-img-rogue-umlibs
requires ld-linux-aarch64.so.1(GLIBC_2.17)(64bit), but no providers found
in RDEPENDS:ti-img-rogue-umlibs? [file-rdeps]
ERROR: ti-img-rogue-umlibs-23.1.6404501-r2 do_package_qa: QA Issue:
/usr/lib/libusc.so.23.1.6404501 contained in package ti-img-rogue-umlibs
requires libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.17)(64bit), but no providers found in
RDEPENDS:ti-img-rogue-umlibs? [file-rdeps]
ERROR: ti-img-rogue-umlibs-23.1.6404501-r2 do_package_qa: QA Issue:
/usr/lib/libufwriter.so.23.1.6404501 contained in package ti-img-rogue-
umlibs requires libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.14)(64bit), but no providers
found in RDEPENDS:ti-img-rogue-umlibs? [file-rdeps]
Reverting the commit makes the build pass, alternatively adding
to depends in the recipe which is using the bin_package class
fixes it too:
DEPENDS += " virtual/${TARGET_PREFIX}compilerlibs virtual/libc"
I'd prefer reverting removing the default dependencies over fixing
each of the recipes which do use the bin_package class to actually
install binaries running in the target user space.
Any opinions?
Bummer. I guess we will have to update our recipes individually
instead. :(
From the bugzilla entry [1] which added the feature and from the commit
adding the class [2] it looks to me that the class should simplify adding
binaries externally built for the target.
Having the users of the class having to add the used libc / compiler
shared objects to not trigger a qa warning seems really wrong to me.
Additionally I don't see the advantage in not installing the base
dependencies. Doing anything usefull in a build would need to build
them anyway for some other recipe, so one would save creating a few
hard links. Do I miss something here?
So IMHO a recipe which inherits the class and really does not like the
default dependencies should add the `INHIBIT_DEFAULT_DEPS = "1"`.
Adding the missing links, sorry about that:
[1] https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1592
[2]
https://www.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/2012-September/067782.html
Thanks for bringing this to light Max. I have no opinion in this. I
understand not wanting to implicitly depending on anything. After all,
explicit is always nice for those that don't want to navigate the full
include chain to figure out recipe dependencies. It's also nicer for a
minimal build (though arguably not in this case because these are core
packages we're depending on).
If this is going to be the standard moving forward please let me know so
I can update this recipe accordingly.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#186837):
https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/186837
Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/100987453/21656
Group Owner: openembedded-core+ow...@lists.openembedded.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [oe][OE-core][Patch 0/1] Revert "bin_package.bbclass: Inhibit the default dependencies"
On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 5:01 PM Max Krummenacher via
lists.openembedded.org
wrote:
>
> On Sun, Aug 27, 2023 at 11:23 PM Peter Kjellerstedt
> wrote:
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: Max Krummenacher
> > > Sent: den 27 augusti 2023 10:10
> > > To: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Peter Kjellerstedt
> > >
> > > Cc: Max Krummenacher ; Randolph Sapp
> > >
> > > Subject: [oe][OE-core][Patch 0/1] Revert "bin_package.bbclass: Inhibit the
> > > default dependencies"
> > >
> > > From: Max Krummenacher
> > >
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > With commit d1d09bd4d7 ("bin_package.bbclass: Inhibit the default
> > > dependencies") applied I'm getting a lot of these errors, i.e. qa
> > > does miss libc and compiler provided libs:
> > >
> > > ERROR: ti-img-rogue-umlibs-23.1.6404501-r2 do_package_qa: QA Issue:
> > > /usr/lib/libusc.so.23.1.6404501 contained in package ti-img-rogue-umlibs
> > > requires ld-linux-aarch64.so.1(GLIBC_2.17)(64bit), but no providers found
> > > in RDEPENDS:ti-img-rogue-umlibs? [file-rdeps]
> > > ERROR: ti-img-rogue-umlibs-23.1.6404501-r2 do_package_qa: QA Issue:
> > > /usr/lib/libusc.so.23.1.6404501 contained in package ti-img-rogue-umlibs
> > > requires libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.17)(64bit), but no providers found in
> > > RDEPENDS:ti-img-rogue-umlibs? [file-rdeps]
> > > ERROR: ti-img-rogue-umlibs-23.1.6404501-r2 do_package_qa: QA Issue:
> > > /usr/lib/libufwriter.so.23.1.6404501 contained in package ti-img-rogue-
> > > umlibs requires libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.14)(64bit), but no providers
> > > found in RDEPENDS:ti-img-rogue-umlibs? [file-rdeps]
> > >
> > > Reverting the commit makes the build pass, alternatively adding
> > > to depends in the recipe which is using the bin_package class
> > > fixes it too:
> > >
> > > DEPENDS += " virtual/${TARGET_PREFIX}compilerlibs virtual/libc"
> > >
> > > I'd prefer reverting removing the default dependencies over fixing
> > > each of the recipes which do use the bin_package class to actually
> > > install binaries running in the target user space.
> > >
> > > Any opinions?
> >
> > Bummer. I guess we will have to update our recipes individually
> > instead. :(
> >
> > >
> > > Max
> > >
> > > Max Krummenacher (1):
> > > Revert "bin_package.bbclass: Inhibit the default dependencies"
> > >
> > > meta/classes-recipe/bin_package.bbclass | 3 ---
> > > 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > --
> > > 2.35.3
> >
> > //Peter
> >
>
> From the bugzilla entry [1] which added the feature and from the commit
> adding the class [2] it looks to me that the class should simplify adding
> binaries externally built for the target.
> Having the users of the class having to add the used libc / compiler
> shared objects to not trigger a qa warning seems really wrong to me.
>
> Additionally I don't see the advantage in not installing the base
> dependencies. Doing anything usefull in a build would need to build
> them anyway for some other recipe, so one would save creating a few
> hard links. Do I miss something here?
>
> So IMHO a recipe which inherits the class and really does not like the
> default dependencies should add the `INHIBIT_DEFAULT_DEPS = "1"`.
Adding the missing links, sorry about that:
[1] https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1592
[2]
https://www.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/2012-September/067782.html
>
> Regards
> Max
>
>
>
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#186833):
https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/186833
Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/100987453/21656
Group Owner: openembedded-core+ow...@lists.openembedded.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [oe][OE-core][Patch 0/1] Revert "bin_package.bbclass: Inhibit the default dependencies"
On Sun, Aug 27, 2023 at 11:23 PM Peter Kjellerstedt
wrote:
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Max Krummenacher
> > Sent: den 27 augusti 2023 10:10
> > To: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Peter Kjellerstedt
> >
> > Cc: Max Krummenacher ; Randolph Sapp
> >
> > Subject: [oe][OE-core][Patch 0/1] Revert "bin_package.bbclass: Inhibit the
> > default dependencies"
> >
> > From: Max Krummenacher
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > With commit d1d09bd4d7 ("bin_package.bbclass: Inhibit the default
> > dependencies") applied I'm getting a lot of these errors, i.e. qa
> > does miss libc and compiler provided libs:
> >
> > ERROR: ti-img-rogue-umlibs-23.1.6404501-r2 do_package_qa: QA Issue:
> > /usr/lib/libusc.so.23.1.6404501 contained in package ti-img-rogue-umlibs
> > requires ld-linux-aarch64.so.1(GLIBC_2.17)(64bit), but no providers found
> > in RDEPENDS:ti-img-rogue-umlibs? [file-rdeps]
> > ERROR: ti-img-rogue-umlibs-23.1.6404501-r2 do_package_qa: QA Issue:
> > /usr/lib/libusc.so.23.1.6404501 contained in package ti-img-rogue-umlibs
> > requires libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.17)(64bit), but no providers found in
> > RDEPENDS:ti-img-rogue-umlibs? [file-rdeps]
> > ERROR: ti-img-rogue-umlibs-23.1.6404501-r2 do_package_qa: QA Issue:
> > /usr/lib/libufwriter.so.23.1.6404501 contained in package ti-img-rogue-
> > umlibs requires libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.14)(64bit), but no providers
> > found in RDEPENDS:ti-img-rogue-umlibs? [file-rdeps]
> >
> > Reverting the commit makes the build pass, alternatively adding
> > to depends in the recipe which is using the bin_package class
> > fixes it too:
> >
> > DEPENDS += " virtual/${TARGET_PREFIX}compilerlibs virtual/libc"
> >
> > I'd prefer reverting removing the default dependencies over fixing
> > each of the recipes which do use the bin_package class to actually
> > install binaries running in the target user space.
> >
> > Any opinions?
>
> Bummer. I guess we will have to update our recipes individually
> instead. :(
>
> >
> > Max
> >
> > Max Krummenacher (1):
> > Revert "bin_package.bbclass: Inhibit the default dependencies"
> >
> > meta/classes-recipe/bin_package.bbclass | 3 ---
> > 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > --
> > 2.35.3
>
> //Peter
>
>From the bugzilla entry [1] which added the feature and from the commit
adding the class [2] it looks to me that the class should simplify adding
binaries externally built for the target.
Having the users of the class having to add the used libc / compiler
shared objects to not trigger a qa warning seems really wrong to me.
Additionally I don't see the advantage in not installing the base
dependencies. Doing anything usefull in a build would need to build
them anyway for some other recipe, so one would save creating a few
hard links. Do I miss something here?
So IMHO a recipe which inherits the class and really does not like the
default dependencies should add the `INHIBIT_DEFAULT_DEPS = "1"`.
Regards
Max
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#186832):
https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/186832
Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/100987453/21656
Group Owner: openembedded-core+ow...@lists.openembedded.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [oe][OE-core][Patch 0/1] Revert "bin_package.bbclass: Inhibit the default dependencies"
> -Original Message-
> From: Max Krummenacher
> Sent: den 27 augusti 2023 10:10
> To: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Peter Kjellerstedt
>
> Cc: Max Krummenacher ; Randolph Sapp
>
> Subject: [oe][OE-core][Patch 0/1] Revert "bin_package.bbclass: Inhibit the
> default dependencies"
>
> From: Max Krummenacher
>
> Hi
>
> With commit d1d09bd4d7 ("bin_package.bbclass: Inhibit the default
> dependencies") applied I'm getting a lot of these errors, i.e. qa
> does miss libc and compiler provided libs:
>
> ERROR: ti-img-rogue-umlibs-23.1.6404501-r2 do_package_qa: QA Issue:
> /usr/lib/libusc.so.23.1.6404501 contained in package ti-img-rogue-umlibs
> requires ld-linux-aarch64.so.1(GLIBC_2.17)(64bit), but no providers found
> in RDEPENDS:ti-img-rogue-umlibs? [file-rdeps]
> ERROR: ti-img-rogue-umlibs-23.1.6404501-r2 do_package_qa: QA Issue:
> /usr/lib/libusc.so.23.1.6404501 contained in package ti-img-rogue-umlibs
> requires libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.17)(64bit), but no providers found in
> RDEPENDS:ti-img-rogue-umlibs? [file-rdeps]
> ERROR: ti-img-rogue-umlibs-23.1.6404501-r2 do_package_qa: QA Issue:
> /usr/lib/libufwriter.so.23.1.6404501 contained in package ti-img-rogue-
> umlibs requires libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.14)(64bit), but no providers
> found in RDEPENDS:ti-img-rogue-umlibs? [file-rdeps]
>
> Reverting the commit makes the build pass, alternatively adding
> to depends in the recipe which is using the bin_package class
> fixes it too:
>
> DEPENDS += " virtual/${TARGET_PREFIX}compilerlibs virtual/libc"
>
> I'd prefer reverting removing the default dependencies over fixing
> each of the recipes which do use the bin_package class to actually
> install binaries running in the target user space.
>
> Any opinions?
Bummer. I guess we will have to update our recipes individually
instead. :(
>
> Max
>
> Max Krummenacher (1):
> Revert "bin_package.bbclass: Inhibit the default dependencies"
>
> meta/classes-recipe/bin_package.bbclass | 3 ---
> 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
>
> --
> 2.35.3
//Peter
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#186807):
https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/186807
Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/100987453/21656
Group Owner: openembedded-core+ow...@lists.openembedded.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[oe][OE-core][Patch 0/1] Revert "bin_package.bbclass: Inhibit the default dependencies"
From: Max Krummenacher
Hi
With commit d1d09bd4d7 ("bin_package.bbclass: Inhibit the default
dependencies") applied I'm getting a lot of these errors, i.e. qa
does miss libc and compiler provided libs:
ERROR: ti-img-rogue-umlibs-23.1.6404501-r2 do_package_qa: QA Issue:
/usr/lib/libusc.so.23.1.6404501 contained in package ti-img-rogue-umlibs
requires ld-linux-aarch64.so.1(GLIBC_2.17)(64bit), but no providers found in
RDEPENDS:ti-img-rogue-umlibs? [file-rdeps]
ERROR: ti-img-rogue-umlibs-23.1.6404501-r2 do_package_qa: QA Issue:
/usr/lib/libusc.so.23.1.6404501 contained in package ti-img-rogue-umlibs
requires libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.17)(64bit), but no providers found in
RDEPENDS:ti-img-rogue-umlibs? [file-rdeps]
ERROR: ti-img-rogue-umlibs-23.1.6404501-r2 do_package_qa: QA Issue:
/usr/lib/libufwriter.so.23.1.6404501 contained in package ti-img-rogue-umlibs
requires libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.14)(64bit), but no providers found in
RDEPENDS:ti-img-rogue-umlibs? [file-rdeps]
Reverting the commit makes the build pass, alternatively adding
to depends in the recipe which is using the bin_package class
fixes it too:
DEPENDS += " virtual/${TARGET_PREFIX}compilerlibs virtual/libc"
I'd prefer reverting removing the default dependencies over fixing
each of the recipes which do use the bin_package class to actually
install binaries running in the target user space.
Any opinions?
Max
Max Krummenacher (1):
Revert "bin_package.bbclass: Inhibit the default dependencies"
meta/classes-recipe/bin_package.bbclass | 3 ---
1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
--
2.35.3
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#186768):
https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/186768
Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/100987453/21656
Group Owner: openembedded-core+ow...@lists.openembedded.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
