[oe][OE-core][Patch 0/1] Revert "bin_package.bbclass: Inhibit the default dependencies"

[Max Krummenacher <max.oss.09@gmail.com>]

From: Max Krummenacher <max.krummenacher@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?

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