On 8/27/2023 4:23 PM, Peter Kjellerstedt wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Max Krummenacher <max.oss...@gmail.com>
Sent: den 27 augusti 2023 10:10
To: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Peter Kjellerstedt
<peter.kjellerst...@axis.com>
Cc: Max Krummenacher <max.krummenac...@toradex.com>; Randolph Sapp
<r...@ti.com>
Subject: [oe][OE-core][Patch 0/1] Revert "bin_package.bbclass: Inhibit the
default dependencies"
From: Max Krummenacher <max.krummenac...@toradex.com>
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 Eatmon reat...@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]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
