Op 1 jul 2011, om 16:55 heeft Phil Blundell het volgende geschreven: > On Thu, 2011-06-30 at 17:49 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote: >> It's a white list, so: >> >> # 0 - non dev contains .so >> # 5 - .la contains installed=yes or reference to the workdir >> # 7 - the desktop file is not valid >> # 8 - .la contains reference to the workdir >> # 9 - LDFLAGS ignored >> >> Are warnings and >> >> # 1 - package contains a dangerous RPATH >> # 2 - package depends on debug package >> # 3 - non dbg contains .so >> # 4 - wrong architecture >> # 6 - .pc contains reference to /usr/include or workdir >> # 10 - Build paths in binaries >> # 11 - package depends on devel package >> >> Are fatal errors. The splits seems arbitrary to me, but it that's how it was >> last year before RP disabled all fatal errors. > > I guess the split does make some sense as it is, although I can't see > any reason for #8 not to be in the fatal set. #5 also seems like it > would belong there except that, as far as I can tell, that test doesn't > actually exist in the code so it's a bit academic how the results are > treated. > > #7 is, in the scheme of things, a relatively minor infringement (and > usually an upstream bug anyway) so probably oughtn't to make a package > unshippable. #9 is potentially a nuisance but in most cases doesn't > cause any actual problems, so again I think it's fair for this to be a > warning. > > Incidentally, it seems that the description for #6 is a bit wrong: it > doesn't actually do any checking for /usr/include. And #3 should > obviously be talking about .debug not .so.
I use #9 as a red flag for broken buildsystems, so having it fatal has helped me a lot. But with RPs insane rework I can easily override the set from DISTRO.conf or local.conf _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
