proper way to report(?) conflicting files being installed?

proper way to report(?) conflicting files being installed?

[Robert P. J. Day]

  long story short, colleague was adding packages to a build and ran
into error wherein both of:

  * autoconf-archive
  * gnome-common

were trying to install a couple identical m4-related files. some
quick googling produced this:

  https://patchwork.openembedded.org/patch/142467/

with the self-evident solution being applied to gnome-common to
"uninstall" the two conflicting files:

--- a/meta-oe/recipes-gnome/gnome-common/gnome-common_3.18.0.bb
+++ b/meta-oe/recipes-gnome/gnome-common/gnome-common_3.18.0.bb
@@ -17,4 +17,15 @@  DEPENDS = ""
 FILES_${PN} += "${datadir}/aclocal"
 FILES_${PN}-dev = ""

+# ax_code_coverage.m4 and ax_check_enable_debug.m4 are in gnome-common only
+# because older versions of autoconf-archive didn't have them yet. Now they
+# are in autoconf-archive from OE-core. We depend on that below to ensure
+# that recipes which only depend on gnome-common still get them.
+do_install_append () {
+    rm -f ${D}${datadir}/aclocal/ax_code_coverage.m4
+    rm -f ${D}${datadir}/aclocal/ax_check_enable_debug.m4
+}
+RDEPENDS_${PN} += "autoconf-archive"
+DEPENDS_append_class-native = " autoconf-archive-native"
+

  it *appears* that solved the problem, which raises the question --
should this patch be applied to the current gnome-common recipe? that
patchwork entry dates back to 2017 ... should it have been applied at
some point?

rday

Re: proper way to report(?) conflicting files being installed?

[Adrian Bunk]

On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 09:22:54AM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>...
> +# ax_code_coverage.m4 and ax_check_enable_debug.m4 are in gnome-common only
> +# because older versions of autoconf-archive didn't have them yet. Now they
> +# are in autoconf-archive from OE-core. We depend on that below to ensure
> +# that recipes which only depend on gnome-common still get them.
> +do_install_append () {
> +    rm -f ${D}${datadir}/aclocal/ax_code_coverage.m4
> +    rm -f ${D}${datadir}/aclocal/ax_check_enable_debug.m4
> +}
> +RDEPENDS_${PN} += "autoconf-archive"
> +DEPENDS_append_class-native = " autoconf-archive-native"
> +
> 
>   it *appears* that solved the problem, which raises the question --
> should this patch be applied to the current gnome-common recipe? that
> patchwork entry dates back to 2017 ... should it have been applied at
> some point?

The currently implemented solution is:
# Default to enable autoconf-archive to avoid conflicts
PACKAGECONFIG ??= "autoconf-archive"
PACKAGECONFIG[autoconf-archive] = "--with-autoconf-archive, --without-autoconf-archive, autoconf-archive"

It is not clear to me why this gives the user to disable it
instead of unconditionally enabling it.

> rday

cu
Adrian

Re: proper way to report(?) conflicting files being installed?

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Thu, 19 Mar 2020, Adrian Bunk wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 09:22:54AM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> >...
> > +# ax_code_coverage.m4 and ax_check_enable_debug.m4 are in gnome-common only
> > +# because older versions of autoconf-archive didn't have them yet. Now they
> > +# are in autoconf-archive from OE-core. We depend on that below to ensure
> > +# that recipes which only depend on gnome-common still get them.
> > +do_install_append () {
> > +    rm -f ${D}${datadir}/aclocal/ax_code_coverage.m4
> > +    rm -f ${D}${datadir}/aclocal/ax_check_enable_debug.m4
> > +}
> > +RDEPENDS_${PN} += "autoconf-archive"
> > +DEPENDS_append_class-native = " autoconf-archive-native"
> > +
> >
> >   it *appears* that solved the problem, which raises the question --
> > should this patch be applied to the current gnome-common recipe? that
> > patchwork entry dates back to 2017 ... should it have been applied at
> > some point?
>
> The currently implemented solution is:
> # Default to enable autoconf-archive to avoid conflicts
> PACKAGECONFIG ??= "autoconf-archive"
> PACKAGECONFIG[autoconf-archive] = "--with-autoconf-archive, --without-autoconf-archive, autoconf-archive"
>
> It is not clear to me why this gives the user to disable it
> instead of unconditionally enabling it.

  i was a bit confused by that as well, but i figured i just didn't
read it carefully enough.

rday

Re: proper way to report(?) conflicting files being installed?

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Thu, 19 Mar 2020, Adrian Bunk wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 09:22:54AM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> >...
> > +# ax_code_coverage.m4 and ax_check_enable_debug.m4 are in gnome-common only
> > +# because older versions of autoconf-archive didn't have them yet. Now they
> > +# are in autoconf-archive from OE-core. We depend on that below to ensure
> > +# that recipes which only depend on gnome-common still get them.
> > +do_install_append () {
> > +    rm -f ${D}${datadir}/aclocal/ax_code_coverage.m4
> > +    rm -f ${D}${datadir}/aclocal/ax_check_enable_debug.m4
> > +}
> > +RDEPENDS_${PN} += "autoconf-archive"
> > +DEPENDS_append_class-native = " autoconf-archive-native"
> > +
> >
> >   it *appears* that solved the problem, which raises the question --
> > should this patch be applied to the current gnome-common recipe? that
> > patchwork entry dates back to 2017 ... should it have been applied at
> > some point?
>
> The currently implemented solution is:
> # Default to enable autoconf-archive to avoid conflicts
> PACKAGECONFIG ??= "autoconf-archive"
> PACKAGECONFIG[autoconf-archive] = "--with-autoconf-archive, --without-autoconf-archive, autoconf-archive"
>
> It is not clear to me why this gives the user to disable it
> instead of unconditionally enabling it.

  this does seem backwards ... if both gnome-common and
autoconf-archive currently try to install those two m4-related files,
doing the above pretty much *assures* an installation conflict, unless
you apply the patch i linked to earlier at:

  https://patchwork.openembedded.org/patch/142467/

where (as i read it) the gnome-common patch uninstalls them, but then
drags in autoconf-archive just to make sure they're installed. so what
*should* this look like?

rday

Re: proper way to report(?) conflicting files being installed?

[Adrian Bunk]

On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 01:09:13PM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Mar 2020, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 09:22:54AM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > >...
> > > +# ax_code_coverage.m4 and ax_check_enable_debug.m4 are in gnome-common only
> > > +# because older versions of autoconf-archive didn't have them yet. Now they
> > > +# are in autoconf-archive from OE-core. We depend on that below to ensure
> > > +# that recipes which only depend on gnome-common still get them.
> > > +do_install_append () {
> > > +    rm -f ${D}${datadir}/aclocal/ax_code_coverage.m4
> > > +    rm -f ${D}${datadir}/aclocal/ax_check_enable_debug.m4
> > > +}
> > > +RDEPENDS_${PN} += "autoconf-archive"
> > > +DEPENDS_append_class-native = " autoconf-archive-native"
> > > +
> > >
> > >   it *appears* that solved the problem, which raises the question --
> > > should this patch be applied to the current gnome-common recipe? that
> > > patchwork entry dates back to 2017 ... should it have been applied at
> > > some point?
> >
> > The currently implemented solution is:
> > # Default to enable autoconf-archive to avoid conflicts
> > PACKAGECONFIG ??= "autoconf-archive"
> > PACKAGECONFIG[autoconf-archive] = "--with-autoconf-archive, --without-autoconf-archive, autoconf-archive"
> >
> > It is not clear to me why this gives the user to disable it
> > instead of unconditionally enabling it.
> 
>   this does seem backwards ... if both gnome-common and
> autoconf-archive currently try to install those two m4-related files,
> doing the above pretty much *assures* an installation conflict,
>...

No, --with-autoconf-archive makes gnome-common not install the 
conflicting files.

> rday

cu
Adrian

Re: proper way to report(?) conflicting files being installed?

[Ross Burton]

On 19/03/2020 17:32, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>>    this does seem backwards ... if both gnome-common and
>> autoconf-archive currently try to install those two m4-related files,
>> doing the above pretty much *assures* an installation conflict,
>> ...
> 
> No, --with-autoconf-archive makes gnome-common not install the
> conflicting files.

I should point out that gnome-common is dead upstream and mostly unused 
now, so if you find a recipe using it do check that it is actually needed.

Ross

Re: proper way to report(?) conflicting files being installed?

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Thu, 19 Mar 2020, Ross Burton wrote:

> On 19/03/2020 17:32, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >>    this does seem backwards ... if both gnome-common and
> >> autoconf-archive currently try to install those two m4-related files,
> >> doing the above pretty much *assures* an installation conflict,
> >> ...
> >
> > No, --with-autoconf-archive makes gnome-common not install the
> > conflicting files.
>
> I should point out that gnome-common is dead upstream and mostly
> unused now, so if you find a recipe using it do check that it is
> actually needed.

  in fact, just earlier this aft, i sent the short note, "um ...
what are you doing that needs that gnome-common thing?"

  i await the reply.

rday

Re: proper way to report(?) conflicting files being installed?

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Thu, 19 Mar 2020, Adrian Bunk wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 01:09:13PM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > On Thu, 19 Mar 2020, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 09:22:54AM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > > >...
> > > > +# ax_code_coverage.m4 and ax_check_enable_debug.m4 are in gnome-common only
> > > > +# because older versions of autoconf-archive didn't have them yet. Now they
> > > > +# are in autoconf-archive from OE-core. We depend on that below to ensure
> > > > +# that recipes which only depend on gnome-common still get them.
> > > > +do_install_append () {
> > > > +    rm -f ${D}${datadir}/aclocal/ax_code_coverage.m4
> > > > +    rm -f ${D}${datadir}/aclocal/ax_check_enable_debug.m4
> > > > +}
> > > > +RDEPENDS_${PN} += "autoconf-archive"
> > > > +DEPENDS_append_class-native = " autoconf-archive-native"
> > > > +
> > > >
> > > >   it *appears* that solved the problem, which raises the question --
> > > > should this patch be applied to the current gnome-common recipe? that
> > > > patchwork entry dates back to 2017 ... should it have been applied at
> > > > some point?
> > >
> > > The currently implemented solution is:
> > > # Default to enable autoconf-archive to avoid conflicts
> > > PACKAGECONFIG ??= "autoconf-archive"
> > > PACKAGECONFIG[autoconf-archive] = "--with-autoconf-archive, --without-autoconf-archive, autoconf-archive"
> > >
> > > It is not clear to me why this gives the user to disable it
> > > instead of unconditionally enabling it.
> >
> >   this does seem backwards ... if both gnome-common and
> > autoconf-archive currently try to install those two m4-related files,
> > doing the above pretty much *assures* an installation conflict,
> >...
>
> No, --with-autoconf-archive makes gnome-common not install the
> conflicting files.

  ah, right, i was just reading (and thinking) backwards.

rday