On Wednesday, 20 January 2021 12:23:34 NZDT Richard Purdie wrote: > On Wed, 2021-01-20 at 12:13 +1300, Paul Eggleton wrote: > > On Wednesday, 20 January 2021 09:52:41 NZDT Richard Purdie wrote: > > > I think the one remaining issue here is the need to change the DEPENDS > > > of so many other recipes, likely not just here in this patch but in > > > other layers. I think if util-linux DEPENDS on util-linux-uuid that > > > might remove the need for those changes? That should still allow you to > > > break the circular dependency problem? > > > > I have to admit to a gap in my own knowledge of how our build system > > handles transitive dependencies. Of course the recipe sysroot should > > still get everything it needs in it even if the dependency is only > > indirectly included, in the back of my mind I have the impression that > > there are expectations that all dependencies are explicitly called out > > and there are subtle issues if they aren't, but that could be a mistaken > > impression on my part. > > I do wonder a little about that as well. As you say, sysroot > dependencies should handle this. Anything linking against libuuid > should also establish an package level runtime dependency through the > linkage so I think this should work. > > We definitely don't explicitly list every dependency in every recipe. > > If this can work, it makes the migration path for people easier so I > think its at least worth investigating/testing.
OK, sure thing. > Just while I'm thinking, the PACKAGES_remove also bothers me a little. > Can we rearrange the variables so libuuid is only added in the libuuid > recipe variant? > > [the idea being that since we control the metadata in oe-core, we > shouldn't need to use _remove and can restructure so we don't need to, > they're hard to undo. I know we do use it in places sadly even in core] Yes, that is a good point. We should be able to avoid using _remove and I don't like using it either given how heavy a hammer it is. > > I agree that it would be better being separate, FWIW. > > > > > I am also worried this is going to break AUH and mean we have to > > > manually handle this recipe but again, I suspect there is little to be > > > done and we just have to deal with it. > > > > Could we perhaps fix the AUH to handle this properly? Do we need some kind > > of mechanism to get it to always upgrade the two recipes together or is > > that only part of the issue? > > I don't know for sure that AUH won't handle it, I just worry about it. > If it doesn't it definitely could be something we could fix there. I > just don't know of anyone with the time to spend on what is a marginal > corner case if it doesn't work. Well, on the other hand if we're "causing" a problem with the AUH with this change it does behoove us to try to resolve that. It is something I'd be prepared to look into at least. Cheers Paul
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#147012): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/147012 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/78861332/21656 Group Owner: openembedded-core+ow...@lists.openembedded.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
