Re: [PATCH] systemd: disable 'libdir' QA check

[Mark Asselstine <mark.asselstine@windriver.com>]

On Monday, December 12, 2016 11:59:04 AM EST Khem Raj wrote:
> > On Dec 12, 2016, at 11:36 AM, Mark Asselstine
> > <mark.asselstine@windriver.com> wrote:
> > 
> > When building systemd with multilib support enabled in your build you
> > will get the following QA warnings (if the 'libdir' QA check is
> > enabled.)
> > 
> > WARNING: systemd-1_232-r0 do_package_qa: QA Issue: systemd-dbg: found \
> > library in wrong location: /lib/systemd/.debug/libsystemd-shared-232.so
> > systemd: found library in wrong location:
> > /lib/systemd/libsystemd-shared.so
> > systemd: found library in wrong location:
> > /lib/systemd/libsystemd-shared-232.so [libdir]
> Can we check if systemd can be a bit more flexible and accept it to go into
> multilib libdir ? this patch can be then applied if its not acceptable to
> systemd community.

I think the discussion I pointed to in the commit log closes the door on any 
such change. Specific the comment from Lennart --
https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/3810#issuecomment-235290526

They don't want the library to be found in the default search path, they want 
to maintain this as a "hidden, internal resource".

Being on the record that I am aware of this discussion/conclusion if I send a 
patch now I would look like a bit of ass for wasting their time. If someone 
else wants to push the issue, feel free. Unless there is a suitable 
recommendation that would satisfy their wishes and ours that I am missing.

Mark


> > Since systemd 231 upstream has included an 'internal' library which
> > they explicitly place in the application specific /lib/systemd
> > directory. You can see some of the discussion about this placement
> > here https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/3810
> > 
> > This placement is being picked up by the QA checker since when
> > multilibs are enabled it expects all libraries to be in lib32 or
> > lib64. Since the systemd and systemd-dbg packages don't contain any
> > other libraries we can respect the upstream placement and skip this QA
> > check for these packages. Unfortunately the QA mechanism doesn't allow
> > us to specify individual files so this approach is the best we can do.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Mark Asselstine <mark.asselstine@windriver.com>
> > ---
> > meta/recipes-core/systemd/systemd_232.bb | 3 ++-
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/systemd/systemd_232.bb
> > b/meta/recipes-core/systemd/systemd_232.bb index baee02e..c86badb 100644
> > --- a/meta/recipes-core/systemd/systemd_232.bb
> > +++ b/meta/recipes-core/systemd/systemd_232.bb
> > @@ -485,7 +485,8 @@ RRECOMMENDS_${PN} +=
> > "${@bb.utils.contains('PACKAGECONFIG', 'serial-getty-genera> 
> >                       os-release \
> > 
> > "
> > 
> > -INSANE_SKIP_${PN} += "dev-so"
> > +INSANE_SKIP_${PN} += "dev-so libdir"
> > +INSANE_SKIP_${PN}-dbg += "libdir"
> > INSANE_SKIP_${PN}-doc += " libdir"
> > 
> > PACKAGES =+ "udev udev-hwdb"