>On Tue, 2019-08-06 at 14:04 +0000, Koeller, Thomas wrote:
>> browsing the list archives I came across an older thread that exactly
>> describes the problem I am currently struggling with:
>>
>> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/pipermail/yocto/2018-February/039950.html
>>
>> In short, I have a recipe that produces only a couple of header files
>> and a single static library, nothing to be installed on the target.
>> So the base package is empty, which is why I have 'ALLOW_EMPTY_${PN}
>> = "1"' in its recipe. In my image definition I have
>> 'SDKIMAGE_FEATURES_append = " staticdev-pkgs"', so I expect the
>> -staticdev package to be included when generating the SDK. This is,
>> however, not the case. While a large number of -staticdev packages
>> from different recipes is now included in the SDK, only the -dev
>> package is included for my recipe, not the -staticdev (though the
>> corresponding rpm is actually built and contains the library as
>> expected, it just is not installed).
>>
>> The archived mail thread referenced above suggests adding the base
>> package ${PN} to IMAGE_INSTALL, which indeed does work for me.
>> However, I do not understand why this is necessary at all, as my
>> package is already referenced from another recipe by being listed in
>> that recipe's DEPENDS variable, shouldn't that be enough?
>
> DEPENDS means its a *build* time dependency. Since nothing links to it
> there is no runtime dependency generated and this empty package you've
> created is never installed into the image.
>
> If its not installed into the image, the SDK for that image won't have
> the corresponding -dev package.
But the -dev image is in fact installed, it is the -staticdev that is
not.
> If you add an RDEPENDS on the empty package to something in the image,
> you'll probably find the -dev package then is installed.
Meanwhile, I tried a different approach:
In bitbake.conf there is a line
DEPCHAIN_POST = "-dev -dbg"
that causes -dev and -dbg packages to pull in the respective packages
generated by recipes that are dependencies. This seemed to explain why
-dev packages were chained while -staticdev were not. I appended
" -staticdev" to that variable (in my image recipe), which IMHO should
be the default. I do not see any reason why -staticdev packages should
be treated differently from -dev in this respect.
Then, I used
ALLOW_EMPTY_${PN}-staticdev = "1"
in my dependent recipe, because that one does not produce a non-empty
-staticdev package.
I chose that approach because to me it appeared to be the cleanest way
to address the problem. Too bad it doesn't work, still only the -dev
packages are included in the SDK. Any idea as to why this did not work
out?
>> Also, the -dev package gets installed into the SDK even without such
>> cruft. As far as I can see, identical logic is applied to both -dev
>> and -staticdev packages, so what is the difference?
>>
>> I also found a different workaround for the problem: listing the
>> -staticdev package in TOOLCHAIN_TARGET_TASK. Needless to say, this
>> workaround is just as undesirable as the former one.
Thomas Koeller
Senior Software Developer
Basler AG
An der Strusbek 60-62
22926 Ahrensburg
Germany
Tel. +49 4102 463 390
Fax +49 4102 463 46 390
thomas.koel...@baslerweb.com
www.baslerweb.com
Management board: Dr.-Ing. Dietmar Ley (CEO) · John P. Jennings · Arndt Bake ·
Hardy Mehl
Chairman of the supervisory board: Norbert Basler
Basler AG · Amtsgericht Lübeck HRB 4090 · Ust-IdNr.: DE 135 098 121 ·
Steuer-Nr.: 30 292 04497 · WEEE-Reg.-Nr. DE 83888045
--
___
yocto mailing list
yocto@yoctoproject.org
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
