On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 4:12 PM Martin Jansa <martin.ja...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 1:50 AM Andreas Müller <schnitzelt...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 4:17 PM Martin Jansa <martin.ja...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > FWIW: I've fixed some bigger layers where pkgconfig was causing quite a >> > few build failures, >> > >> Had an off-oe time due to heavy work load. >> Think this one is the reason for the pkgconfig patch flood. You are >> aware that there are packages not failing at build time for missing >> pkgconfig but build output is different and bugs will pop up at >> runtime. >> >> To avoid responsible maintainers have to go through EVERY recipe (and >> combination of PACKAGECONFIGs) and check if builds are still as >> expected - Can't believe it! > > > Not sure why this seems targeted to me. > > Yes I've tried to fix whatever issues this change caused in my world builds > and I'm partially responsible for pkgconfig patch flood, because I wanted > layers like meta-ros/*, meta-qt5, meta-qt6, meta-webosose/* to stay > compatible with oe-core whenever this change from RP is merged to master. I am not against the flood of pkconfig patches I am against this patch. > > I've also tried to compare buildhistory and image content (for > ros-image-world with ros1-melodic) to see if I can spot more cases of > non-fatal build output changes as in collada-dom and unfortunately there is a > lot of noise in buildhistory (due to many recipes included in this image not > really build-reproducible), so I've used mostly installed-package-sizes.txt > file to spot 2 more recipes where the size was different (but both don't seem > to be caused by pkgconfig-native in the end). > > I did both builds from scratch without sstate, so I would assume that it will > catch all possible cases, but surprisingly just yesterday I've caught another > missing pkgconfig-native in one of meta-ros1-melodic recipes (caught in > kirkstone based build - while before I was testing on top of a bit older > honister with this change cherry-picked just for test - to prepare recipes to > be future-proof for kirkstone). > This was huge effort - and it sounds there is still no 100% confidence to get same you had before - right? Others have to do same.
And for what? A build acceleration of how much - this patch does not mention numbers. Or is it: Only the perfect recipes are allowed to survive. To me oe-core has decided (again) to make changes without taking care: Break dozens of layers and force maintainers to spend days to get what they had before this change. From image perspective nothing has changed. And the very best: Some layers were just made for fun and since this is definitely no fun they are going to die. After this I have to work on my motivation spending time on this project - not an easy task. My opinion Andreas > Regards,
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#157086): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/157086 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/85739636/21656 Group Owner: openembedded-core+ow...@lists.openembedded.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
