On Thu, 2026-07-16 at 12:27 -0600, Tom Rini wrote: > On Thu, Jul 16, 2026 at 12:25:00PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: > > On Wed, 2026-07-08 at 17:37 +0300, Leon Anavi via > > lists.openembedded.org wrote: > > > This fixes issues with test_machine_world when running the > > > yocto-check-layer script for BSP layers that include weston in > > > the > > > dependency chain, for example meta-tegra: > > > > > > ERROR: Required build target 'meta-world-pkgdata' has no > > > buildable > > > providers. > > > Missing or unbuildable dependency chain was: ['meta-world- > > > pkgdata', > > > 'l4t-graphics-demos', 'weston'] > > > > Why wouldn't l4t-graphics-demos just list pam as a required distro > > feature for that recipe? > > Because it doesn't come from l4t-graphics-demos it comes from weston? > And l4t-graphics-demos supports wayland or x11. Doing something here > would be the not satisfying approach Paul mentioned on v1 or so of > this thread. It shuts yocto-check-layer up while doing nothing of > value.
I should explain a little about the unfortunate way that REQUIRED_DISTRO_FEATURES works. Anything that needs a specific distro feature uses that but it has a unfortunate ripple side effect where anything with that recipe as a dependency, must also then have the same REQUIRED_DISTRO_FEATURES line (or more restrictive). This was discussed extensively in the past and you will see this in the way x11 is rippled through recipes. I appreciate you will then argue this should be automatic as obviously anything depending on X will require Y as a DISTRO_FEATURE. I have refused to implement any such magic as it turns out it can misfire spectacularly badly and end up just masking every recipe out as a ripple effect for a poorly thought out change as the worst case scenario. There are plenty of scenarios where unexpected bad things can happen which would be hard to spot. This was discussed in the past too. So, my point is that if you have weston-init as a dependency, even indirectly, you have the required distro features requirement passed to that recipe and need to mark the recipe as such. No, it isn't great, but the alternatives can go spectacularly wrong too and you can't work out how to do this correctly automatically in a safe way. You are doing something of value, you're clearly marking the requirement of the recipe (which it has via it's dependencies). I think the question is marking the recipe in question to say it requires "pam+systemd+weston" or "x11", which might mean anonymous python but is definitely doable. Cheers, Richard
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#241108): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/241108 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/120174368/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
