[PULL]Fix moving libtcl8.5.so into tcl-lib.

[PULL]Fix moving libtcl8.5.so into tcl-lib.

[Lu Jingdong]

Note: <commit_id> parameter assumed as 'HEAD'

  meta/recipes-devtools/tcltk/tcl_8.5.8.bb                 |    4 
  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

Jingdong Lu (1):
      Fix moving libtcl8.5.so into tcl-lib.

Pull URL:
http://git.pokylinux.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/log/?h=jingdonglu/distro

-- 
Lu Jingdong
jingdong.lu@windriver.com
China, Wind River

Re: [PULL]Fix moving libtcl8.5.so into tcl-lib.

[Saul Wold]

On 11/07/2010 11:00 PM, Lu Jingdong wrote:
> Note:<commit_id>  parameter assumed as 'HEAD'
>
>    meta/recipes-devtools/tcltk/tcl_8.5.8.bb                 |    4
>    1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> Jingdong Lu (1):
>        Fix moving libtcl8.5.so into tcl-lib.
>
> Pull URL:
> http://git.pokylinux.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/log/?h=jingdonglu/distro
>
Jingdong:

Can you give some additional rational as to why this change is needed, 
other recipes use the "so.*" format vs the "so*".

Thanks
	Sau!

Re: [PULL]Fix moving libtcl8.5.so into tcl-lib.

[Lu Jingdong]

Saul:

    tcl provides only one library named "libtcl8.5.so" and it hasn't
libraries named like "libtcl8.5.so.*". So when we use "so.*" in  FILES_
${PN}-lib = "${libdir}/libtcl8.5.so.*", we can't include "libtcl8.5.so"
into "tcl-lib" package and we can't get the package "tcl-lib" because it
is a empty package.

    It doesn't like other libraries. For example, libxcb provides 
"libxcb-glx.so.0.0.0", "libxcb-glx.so.0" and "libxcb-glx.so". Among of
them, "libxcb-glx.so.0" and "libxcb-glx.so" are symbol links of
"libxcb-glx.so.0.0.0", so we can use the "so.*" and it includes the
following two files("libxcb-glx.so.0.0.0" and "libxcb-glx.so.0"). The
file "libxcb-glx.so" is in the "libxcb-dev" package. I am not sure
whether "libxcb-glx.so" should in the "libxcb-dev".

On Mon, 2010-11-08 at 18:20 -0800, Saul Wold wrote:
> On 11/07/2010 11:00 PM, Lu Jingdong wrote:
> > Note:<commit_id>  parameter assumed as 'HEAD'
> >
> >    meta/recipes-devtools/tcltk/tcl_8.5.8.bb                 |    4
> >    1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > Jingdong Lu (1):
> >        Fix moving libtcl8.5.so into tcl-lib.
> >
> > Pull URL:
> > http://git.pokylinux.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/log/?h=jingdonglu/distro
> >
> Jingdong:
> 
> Can you give some additional rational as to why this change is needed, 
> other recipes use the "so.*" format vs the "so*".
> 
> Thanks
> 	Sau!
> _______________________________________________
> poky mailing list
> poky@yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/poky

-- 
Lu Jingdong
jingdong.lu@windriver.com
China, Wind River

Re: [PULL]Fix moving libtcl8.5.so into tcl-lib.

[Mark Hatle]

On 11/8/10 10:52 PM, Lu Jingdong wrote:
> Saul:
>
>      tcl provides only one library named "libtcl8.5.so" and it hasn't
> libraries named like "libtcl8.5.so.*". So when we use "so.*" in  FILES_
> ${PN}-lib = "${libdir}/libtcl8.5.so.*", we can't include "libtcl8.5.so"
> into "tcl-lib" package and we can't get the package "tcl-lib" because it
> is a empty package.
>
>      It doesn't like other libraries. For example, libxcb provides
> "libxcb-glx.so.0.0.0", "libxcb-glx.so.0" and "libxcb-glx.so". Among of
> them, "libxcb-glx.so.0" and "libxcb-glx.so" are symbol links of
> "libxcb-glx.so.0.0.0", so we can use the "so.*" and it includes the
> following two files("libxcb-glx.so.0.0.0" and "libxcb-glx.so.0"). The
> file "libxcb-glx.so" is in the "libxcb-dev" package. I am not sure
> whether "libxcb-glx.so" should in the "libxcb-dev".

This is likely a check we may want to add to our QA suite.  The rule for which 
symlinks must be in the run-time package vs a development package is:


Run-time:
The actual dynamic library file (duh)
Symlinks to the dynamic library file with the filename of an SONAME specified by 
the library file


Development:
Any "other" symlinks to the dynamic library NOT referenced by an SONAME
Any static library files
Any symlinks to static library files
Any (related) .la files
Any (related) .pc files
Any (related) headers


It should be fairly simple to validate the run-time, and lack of development 
components in the run-time package.


Does anyone know if this validation is already part of the sanity checking, or 
would this be an enhancement?

--Mark

> On Mon, 2010-11-08 at 18:20 -0800, Saul Wold wrote:
>> On 11/07/2010 11:00 PM, Lu Jingdong wrote:
>>> Note:<commit_id>   parameter assumed as 'HEAD'
>>>
>>>     meta/recipes-devtools/tcltk/tcl_8.5.8.bb                 |    4
>>>     1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> Jingdong Lu (1):
>>>         Fix moving libtcl8.5.so into tcl-lib.
>>>
>>> Pull URL:
>>> http://git.pokylinux.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/log/?h=jingdonglu/distro
>>>
>> Jingdong:
>>
>> Can you give some additional rational as to why this change is needed,
>> other recipes use the "so.*" format vs the "so*".
>>
>> Thanks
>> 	Sau!
>> _______________________________________________
>> poky mailing list
>> poky@yoctoproject.org
>> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/poky
>

Re: [PULL]Fix moving libtcl8.5.so into tcl-lib.

[Saul Wold]

On 11/07/2010 11:00 PM, Lu Jingdong wrote:
> Note:<commit_id>  parameter assumed as 'HEAD'
>
>    meta/recipes-devtools/tcltk/tcl_8.5.8.bb                 |    4
>    1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> Jingdong Lu (1):
>        Fix moving libtcl8.5.so into tcl-lib.
>
> Pull URL:
> http://git.pokylinux.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/log/?h=jingdonglu/distro
>
Merged into Master

Thanks
	Sau!

Re: [PULL]Fix moving libtcl8.5.so into tcl-lib.

[Richard Purdie]

On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 09:16 -0600, Mark Hatle wrote:
> On 11/8/10 10:52 PM, Lu Jingdong wrote:
> > Saul:
> >
> >      tcl provides only one library named "libtcl8.5.so" and it hasn't
> > libraries named like "libtcl8.5.so.*". So when we use "so.*" in  FILES_
> > ${PN}-lib = "${libdir}/libtcl8.5.so.*", we can't include "libtcl8.5.so"
> > into "tcl-lib" package and we can't get the package "tcl-lib" because it
> > is a empty package.
> >
> >      It doesn't like other libraries. For example, libxcb provides
> > "libxcb-glx.so.0.0.0", "libxcb-glx.so.0" and "libxcb-glx.so". Among of
> > them, "libxcb-glx.so.0" and "libxcb-glx.so" are symbol links of
> > "libxcb-glx.so.0.0.0", so we can use the "so.*" and it includes the
> > following two files("libxcb-glx.so.0.0.0" and "libxcb-glx.so.0"). The
> > file "libxcb-glx.so" is in the "libxcb-dev" package. I am not sure
> > whether "libxcb-glx.so" should in the "libxcb-dev".
> 
> This is likely a check we may want to add to our QA suite.  The rule for which 
> symlinks must be in the run-time package vs a development package is:
> 
> 
> Run-time:
> The actual dynamic library file (duh)
> Symlinks to the dynamic library file with the filename of an SONAME specified by 
> the library file
> 
> 
> Development:
> Any "other" symlinks to the dynamic library NOT referenced by an SONAME
> Any static library files
> Any symlinks to static library files
> Any (related) .la files
> Any (related) .pc files
> Any (related) headers
> 
> 
> It should be fairly simple to validate the run-time, and lack of development 
> components in the run-time package.
> 
> 
> Does anyone know if this validation is already part of the sanity checking, or 
> would this be an enhancement?

I think its all already part of the sanity checks...

Cheers,

Richard