On 27 July 2012 07:10, Radu Moisan wrote:
> I've looked into the configure script and found that autolaunch feature is
> depending on x11, in other words using --with-x/--without-x implies
> --enable-x11-autolaunch/--disable-x11-autolaunch, so I guess the initial
> EXTRA_OECONF_X line will do pret
On 07/27/2012 09:10 AM, Radu Moisan wrote:
On 07/27/2012 12:12 AM, Burton, Ross wrote:
On 26 July 2012 14:17, Enrico Scholz wrote:
Radu Moisan
writes:
Followed suggestions from Bugz 2261:
1) remove the --with-x/--without-x configure arguments.
why? They are valid ./configure options and
On 07/27/2012 12:12 AM, Burton, Ross wrote:
On 26 July 2012 14:17, Enrico Scholz wrote:
Radu Moisan
writes:
Followed suggestions from Bugz 2261:
1) remove the --with-x/--without-x configure arguments.
why? They are valid ./configure options and common when evaluating the
x11 distro-featur
On 26 July 2012 15:32, Enrico Scholz wrote:
> I do not speak about crash; I guess 'dbus-launch' has some extra
> functionality when compiled with x11 support, and packages which
> depend on dbus-x11 might expect this functionality.
>
> Providing 'dbus-x11' although no x11 functionality is provided
On 26 July 2012 14:17, Enrico Scholz wrote:
> Radu Moisan
> writes:
>
>> Followed suggestions from Bugz 2261:
>>
>> 1) remove the --with-x/--without-x configure arguments.
>
> why? They are valid ./configure options and common when evaluating the
> x11 distro-feature. Selecting them explicitly m
Radu Moisan
writes:
> it does not crash at runtime.
I do not speak about crash; I guess 'dbus-launch' has some extra
functionality when compiled with x11 support, and packages which
depend on dbus-x11 might expect this functionality.
Providing 'dbus-x11' although no x11 functionality is provide
it does not crash at runtime. You can try
dbus-launch --auto-syntax
it'll start a bus and print out the information like:
DBUS_SESSION_BUS_ADDRESS='unix:abstract=/tmp/dbus-N48lpeD2TP,guid=0f3cd66fdbdc2f436a9356790002eaa1';
export DBUS_SESSION_BUS_ADDRESS;
DBUS_SESSION_BUS_PID=23640;
Radu
On 0
Op 26 jul. 2012, om 15:12 heeft Paul Eggleton het volgende geschreven:
> On Thursday 26 July 2012 15:07:42 Koen Kooi wrote:
>>> Without being too concerned with implementation details, I think it's as
>>> simple as this: if recipe A has foo in RDEPENDS_${PN} and recipe B has foo
>>> in RPROVIDES_
Radu Moisan
writes:
> Followed suggestions from Bugz 2261:
>
> 1) remove the --with-x/--without-x configure arguments.
why? They are valid ./configure options and common when evaluating the
x11 distro-feature. Selecting them explicitly makes the build more
predictable and detects configuration
On Thursday 26 July 2012 15:07:42 Koen Kooi wrote:
> > Without being too concerned with implementation details, I think it's as
> > simple as this: if recipe A has foo in RDEPENDS_${PN} and recipe B has foo
> > in RPROVIDES_${PN} then the runtime dependency is considered satisfied
> > and things wi
Koen Kooi
writes:
> RPROVIDES_${PN} += "dbus-x11"
This is wrong because 'dbus' does not provide dbus-x11 when x11 is
disabled by distro. Packages which require dbus-launch from 'dbus-x11'
will install fine but will fail at runtime.
Enrico
___
Opene
Op 26 jul. 2012, om 14:56 heeft Paul Eggleton het volgende geschreven:
> On Thursday 26 July 2012 14:38:59 Koen Kooi wrote:
>> Op 26 jul. 2012, om 14:32 heeft Paul Eggleton het volgende geschreven:
>>> On Thursday 26 July 2012 14:29:14 Koen Kooi wrote:
Op 26 jul. 2012, om 14:00 heeft Burton,
This was also my understanding. Ok so we want PROVIDES in there just for
the case in which someone in some layer created a dependency on dbus-x11
(in some recipe) with DEPENDS and we don't want to break his build -
this argument will suffice, as far as I am concerned.
Radu
On 07/26/2012 03:5
only in meta & meta-intel.
Radu
On 07/26/2012 03:51 PM, Koen Kooi wrote:
Op 26 jul. 2012, om 14:36 heeft Radu Moisan het volgende geschreven:
I understand the reasoning behind RPROVIDES. I've grep'ed the sources and none
of the packages that depend on dbus-x11 have build time dependencies on
On Thursday 26 July 2012 14:38:59 Koen Kooi wrote:
> Op 26 jul. 2012, om 14:32 heeft Paul Eggleton het volgende geschreven:
> > On Thursday 26 July 2012 14:29:14 Koen Kooi wrote:
> >> Op 26 jul. 2012, om 14:00 heeft Burton, Ross het volgende geschreven:
> >>> On 26 July 2012 12:55, Koen Kooi wrote
Op 26 jul. 2012, om 14:36 heeft Radu Moisan het volgende geschreven:
> I understand the reasoning behind RPROVIDES. I've grep'ed the sources and
> none of the packages that depend on dbus-x11 have build time dependencies on
> it,
You grepped all the layers out there for 'dbus-x11' or only oe-
Op 26 jul. 2012, om 14:32 heeft Paul Eggleton het volgende geschreven:
> On Thursday 26 July 2012 14:29:14 Koen Kooi wrote:
>> Op 26 jul. 2012, om 14:00 heeft Burton, Ross het volgende geschreven:
>>> On 26 July 2012 12:55, Koen Kooi wrote:
It would be nice if other layers that have RDEPEND
I understand the reasoning behind RPROVIDES. I've grep'ed the sources
and none of the packages that depend on dbus-x11 have build time
dependencies on it, so the question arises "what's the point of
PROVIDES?". I understand the compatibility argument, but it seems to me
more like an argument wh
On Thursday 26 July 2012 14:29:14 Koen Kooi wrote:
> Op 26 jul. 2012, om 14:00 heeft Burton, Ross het volgende geschreven:
> > On 26 July 2012 12:55, Koen Kooi wrote:
> >> It would be nice if other layers that have RDEPENDS_foo = "dbus-x11" keep
> >> working till their maintainers get around fixin
Op 26 jul. 2012, om 14:00 heeft Burton, Ross het volgende geschreven:
> On 26 July 2012 12:55, Koen Kooi wrote:
>> It would be nice if other layers that have RDEPENDS_foo = "dbus-x11" keep
>> working till their maintainers get around fixing them. Note that you might
>> need to do a -c cleansst
On 26 July 2012 12:55, Koen Kooi wrote:
> It would be nice if other layers that have RDEPENDS_foo = "dbus-x11" keep
> working till their maintainers get around fixing them. Note that you might
> need to do a -c cleansstate on dbus first to trigger any errors.
Yes, and isn't that what the RPROVI
Op 26 jul. 2012, om 13:27 heeft Burton, Ross het volgende geschreven:
> On 26 July 2012 11:55, Radu Moisan wrote:
>> I see no build-time dependencies on dbus-x11 (only runtime dependencies),
>> so, assuming PROVIDES is used at build-time, I don't see it's point.
>
> We've just removed dbus-x11
On 26 July 2012 11:55, Radu Moisan wrote:
> I see no build-time dependencies on dbus-x11 (only runtime dependencies),
> so, assuming PROVIDES is used at build-time, I don't see it's point.
We've just removed dbus-x11 because it's pointless, the provides is
only for compatibility.
Ross
_
I see no build-time dependencies on dbus-x11 (only runtime
dependencies), so, assuming PROVIDES is used at build-time, I don't see
it's point.
Radu
On 07/26/2012 01:31 PM, Radu Moisan wrote:
the build issue was solved by RPROVIDES, while PROVIDES did not fix
the build or influence the error i
should I create a single patch that changes dbus-x11 to dbus, or one for
each package?
Radu
On 07/26/2012 01:23 PM, Burton, Ross wrote:
On 26 July 2012 10:51, Koen Kooi wrote:
What's the point of PROVIDES += dbus-x11, it build fine without it (I'm not
questioning the correctness of this, ju
the build issue was solved by RPROVIDES, while PROVIDES did not fix the
build or influence the error in any way.
Radu
On 07/26/2012 12:51 PM, Koen Kooi wrote:
Op 26 jul. 2012, om 11:18 heeft Radu Moisan het volgende geschreven:
What's the point of PROVIDES += dbus-x11, it build fine without
On 26 July 2012 10:51, Koen Kooi wrote:
>> What's the point of PROVIDES += dbus-x11, it build fine without it (I'm not
>> questioning the correctness of this, just want to understand the need for
>> it).
>
> This morning you said:
>
> "it does not build, it complains about nothing providing dbus
Op 26 jul. 2012, om 11:18 heeft Radu Moisan het volgende geschreven:
> What's the point of PROVIDES += dbus-x11, it build fine without it (I'm not
> questioning the correctness of this, just want to understand the need for it).
This morning you said:
"it does not build, it complains about noth
What's the point of PROVIDES += dbus-x11, it build fine without it (I'm
not questioning the correctness of this, just want to understand the
need for it).
Radu
On 07/26/2012 11:43 AM, Koen Kooi wrote:
Op 26 jul. 2012, om 10:42 heeft Paul Eggleton
het volgende geschreven:
On Thursday 26 Ju
Op 26 jul. 2012, om 10:42 heeft Paul Eggleton
het volgende geschreven:
> On Thursday 26 July 2012 10:08:49 Koen Kooi wrote:
>> Op 26 jul. 2012, om 08:29 heeft Radu Moisan het
>>> volgende geschreven:
>>> it does not build, it complains about nothing providing dbus-x11
>>>
>>> Radu
>>>
>>> On
On Thursday 26 July 2012 10:08:49 Koen Kooi wrote:
> Op 26 jul. 2012, om 08:29 heeft Radu Moisan het
> > volgende geschreven:
> > it does not build, it complains about nothing providing dbus-x11
> >
> > Radu
> >
> > On 07/26/2012 09:17 AM, Radu Moisan wrote:
> >> Followed suggestions from Bugz 2
Op 26 jul. 2012, om 08:29 heeft Radu Moisan het
volgende geschreven:
> it does not build, it complains about nothing providing dbus-x11
>
> Radu
>
> On 07/26/2012 09:17 AM, Radu Moisan wrote:
>> Followed suggestions from Bugz 2261:
>>
>> 1) remove the --with-x/--without-x configure arguments
it does not build, it complains about nothing providing dbus-x11
Radu
On 07/26/2012 09:17 AM, Radu Moisan wrote:
Followed suggestions from Bugz 2261:
1) remove the --with-x/--without-x configure arguments. If you want to force
no-discovery for native builds the correct argument is --disable-x1
Followed suggestions from Bugz 2261:
1) remove the --with-x/--without-x configure arguments. If you want to force
no-discovery for native builds the correct argument is --disable-x11-autolaunch.
This ensures that DBus looks at the build environment to determine whether to
enable X11 bus discovery
34 matches
Mail list logo
