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

[Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>]

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