All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Saul Wold <sgw@linux.intel.com>
To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer
	<openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org>
Subject: Re: [CONSOLIDATED PULL 4/4] multiple recipes converted to -staticdev packages
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 11:36:30 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4DF2642E.5070706@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1307697909.2529.4983.camel@phil-desktop>

On 06/10/2011 02:25 AM, Phil Blundell wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-06-09 at 23:26 -0700, Saul Wold wrote:
>> +DEPENDS_libpci-staticdev = "libpci-dev (= ${EXTENDPKGV})"
>
> This can't be right.  I guess that would be a good thing for
> recipe-sanity to test for in fact.
>
It's not, I did not catch the cut and paste error on the RDEPENDS vs 
DEPENDS.

>> +FILES_eglibc-dev_append += "${bindir}/rpcgen ${base_libdir}/*.o ${datadir}/aclocal"
>> +FILES_eglibc-staticdev_append += "${libdir}/*.a ${base_libdir}/*.a"
>
> You need to make sure that libc_nonshared.a goes into -dev rather than
> -staticdev somehow.  I didn't immediately spot any mechanism which would
> do this, though I haven't tested the package to find out what happens.
>
>> +FILES_uclibc-staticdev_append = "\
>> +        ${libdir}/*_nonshared.a \
>> +        ${libdir}/lib*.a \
>
> In similar vein, this doesn't look right.
>
I think I should be able to remove nonshared from a list.

>> diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/util-linux/util-linux.inc b/meta/recipes-core/util-linux/util-linux.inc
>> index b77266a..ed4bcdb 100644
>> --- a/meta/recipes-core/util-linux/util-linux.inc
>> +++ b/meta/recipes-core/util-linux/util-linux.inc
>> @@ -13,6 +13,8 @@ LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://README.licensing;md5=9c920d811858a74b67a36ba23cbaa95f
>>                       file://licenses/COPYING.UCB;md5=263860f8968d8bafa5392cab74285262 \
>>                       file://getopt/COPYING;md5=8ca43cbc842c2336e835926c2166c28b"
>>
>> +INC_PR = "r0"
>> +
>> diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/util-linux/util-linux_2.19.1.bb b/meta/recipes-core/util-linux/util-linux_2.19.1.bb
>> index 132f28b..3c5747c 100644
>> --- a/meta/recipes-core/util-linux/util-linux_2.19.1.bb
>> +++ b/meta/recipes-core/util-linux/util-linux_2.19.1.bb
>> @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
>>   MAJOR_VERSION = "2.19"
>> -PR = "r1"
>> +PR = "${INC_PR}.0"
>
> This looks like it will cause PR to go backwards.
>
>>   require util-linux.inc
>>
>>   # note that `lscpu' is under GPLv3+
>> diff --git a/meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils.inc b/meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils.inc
>> index 08c14b2..82d9511 100644
>> --- a/meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils.inc
>> +++ b/meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils.inc
>> @@ -24,7 +24,6 @@ FILES_${PN} = " \
>>
>>   FILES_${PN}-dev = " \
>>   	${includedir} \
>> -	${libdir}/*.a \
>>   	${libdir}/*.la \
>>   	${libdir}/libbfd.so \
>>   	${libdir}/libopcodes.so"
>
> This one is a bit odd: it seems to just be dropping the .a files
> altogether without introducing a -staticdev package for them.
>
I thought that maybe the default rule provided in bitbake.conf should 
accomplish this since it is FILES_${PN}-staticdev = "${libdir}/*.a 
${base_libdir}/*.a"


>> +DEPENDS_libg2c-staticdev = "libg2c-dev (= ${EXTENDPKGV})"
>> +DEPENDS_libstdc++-staticdev = "libstdc++-dev (= ${EXTENDPKGV})"
>> +DEPENDS_libssp-staticdev = "libssp-dev (= ${EXTENDPKGV})"
>> +DEPENDS_libfortran-staticdev = "libfortran-dev (= ${EXTENDPKGV})"
>> +DEPENDS_libmudflap-staticdev = "libmudflap-dev (= ${EXTENDPKGV})"
>> +DEPENDS_libopkg${PKGSUFFIX}-staticdev = "libopkg${PKGSUFFIX}-dev (= ${EXTENDPKGV})"
>
> Those all look wrong.
>
Cut and paste issue

>> --- a/meta/recipes-multimedia/liba52/liba52_0.7.4.bb
>> +++ b/meta/recipes-multimedia/liba52/liba52_0.7.4.bb
>> @@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://COPYING;md5=0636e73ff0215e8d672dc4c32c317bb3 \
>>   			file://include/a52.h;beginline=1;endline=12;md5=81152ceb3562bf20a60d1b6018175dd1"
>>   SECTION = "libs"
>>   PRIORITY = "optional"
>> -PR = "r2"
>> +PR = "r3"
>>
>>   inherit autotools
>>
>> @@ -21,7 +21,8 @@ EXTRA_OECONF = " --enable-shared "
>>   PACKAGES =+ "a52dec a52dec-dbg a52dec-doc"
>>
>>   FILES_${PN} = " ${libdir}/liba52.so.0 ${libdir}/liba52.so.0.0.0 "
>> -FILES_${PN}-dev = " ${includedir}/a52dec/*.h ${libdir}/liba52.so ${libdir}/liba52.la ${libdir}/liba52.a "
>> +#FILES_${PN}-dev = " ${includedir}/a52dec/*.h ${libdir}/liba52.so ${libdir}/liba52.la "
>> +#FILES_${PN}-staticdev = " ${libdir}/liba52.a "
>
> This is a bit weird.  What's going on here?
>
As above, trying to ensure that the default bitbake.conf rules would work.

>> +DEPENDS_lib${PN}-staticdev = "lib${PN}-dev (= ${EXTENDPKGV})"
>
> As above.
>
>> +DEPENDS_lib${PN}-staticdev = "lib${PN}-dev (= ${EXTENDPKGV})"
>
> Ditto.
>
> All in all I think this patch needs a bit more work.  It was quite a big
> diff so I only skimmed it rather than reviewing it thoroughly but I
> don't think it is quite ready to go in yet.  Also, can't a lot of this
> be done in bitbake.conf without quite so much recipe patching?
>
Most of it is done there, I was looking at adding a staticdev.bbclass 
that would handle the lib${PN} case generically, as a second phase of this.

> p.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
>



  parent reply	other threads:[~2011-06-10 18:39 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-06-10  6:26 [CONSOLIDATED PULL 0/4] 10-June Saul Wold
2011-06-10  6:26 ` [CONSOLIDATED PULL 1/4] ghostscript: update SRC_URI Saul Wold
2011-06-10  6:26 ` [CONSOLIDATED PULL 2/4] busybox: backport distro-features handling from oe master Saul Wold
2011-06-10  6:26 ` [CONSOLIDATED PULL 3/4] gcc: rebase the patch to avoid patch rejection Saul Wold
2011-06-10  6:26 ` [CONSOLIDATED PULL 4/4] multiple recipes converted to -staticdev packages Saul Wold
2011-06-10  9:25   ` Phil Blundell
2011-06-10  9:43     ` Phil Blundell
2011-06-10 18:36     ` Saul Wold [this message]
2011-06-10 21:36       ` Phil Blundell
2011-06-10 22:46         ` Saul Wold
2011-06-10 22:04   ` Khem Raj
2011-06-10 16:33 ` [CONSOLIDATED PULL 0/4] 10-June Richard Purdie
2011-06-10 16:54   ` Saul Wold
2011-06-10 16:59   ` Koen Kooi

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=4DF2642E.5070706@linux.intel.com \
    --to=sgw@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.