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

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

[Max Krummenacher]

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

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

[Max Krummenacher]

From: Max Krummenacher <max.krummenacher@toradex.com>

This reverts commit d1d09bd4d7be88f0e341d5fccbfbefeb98d4b727.

The commit not only removes the dependencies on the cross compiler
but also does not depend on e.g. virtual/${TARGET_PREFIX}compilerlibs
and virtual/libc which in turn makes the file-rdeps qa check fail
if installing binaries linked against e.g. libc or libstdc++.

Signed-off-by: Max Krummenacher <max.krummenacher@toradex.com>
---
 meta/classes-recipe/bin_package.bbclass | 3 ---
 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/meta/classes-recipe/bin_package.bbclass b/meta/classes-recipe/bin_package.bbclass
index 9dd2489725..3a1befc29c 100644
--- a/meta/classes-recipe/bin_package.bbclass
+++ b/meta/classes-recipe/bin_package.bbclass
@@ -20,9 +20,6 @@
 # they would be in ${WORKDIR}.
 #
 
-# Nothing is being built so there is no need for the cross-compiler.
-INHIBIT_DEFAULT_DEPS = "1"
-
 # Skip the unwanted steps
 do_configure[noexec] = "1"
 do_compile[noexec] = "1"
-- 
2.35.3

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

[Peter Kjellerstedt]

*ping* This needs to be applied to both master and nanbield.

//Peter

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Max Krummenacher <max.oss.09@gmail.com>
> Sent: den 27 augusti 2023 10:10
> To: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Peter Kjellerstedt <peter.kjellerstedt@axis.com>
> Cc: Max Krummenacher <max.krummenacher@toradex.com>; Randolph Sapp <rs@ti.com>
> Subject: [oe][OE-core][Patch 1/1] Revert "bin_package.bbclass: Inhibit the default dependencies"
> 
> From: Max Krummenacher <max.krummenacher@toradex.com>
> 
> This reverts commit d1d09bd4d7be88f0e341d5fccbfbefeb98d4b727.
> 
> The commit not only removes the dependencies on the cross compiler
> but also does not depend on e.g. virtual/${TARGET_PREFIX}compilerlibs
> and virtual/libc which in turn makes the file-rdeps qa check fail
> if installing binaries linked against e.g. libc or libstdc++.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Max Krummenacher <max.krummenacher@toradex.com>
> ---
>  meta/classes-recipe/bin_package.bbclass | 3 ---
>  1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/meta/classes-recipe/bin_package.bbclass b/meta/classes-recipe/bin_package.bbclass
> index 9dd2489725..3a1befc29c 100644
> --- a/meta/classes-recipe/bin_package.bbclass
> +++ b/meta/classes-recipe/bin_package.bbclass
> @@ -20,9 +20,6 @@
>  # they would be in ${WORKDIR}.
>  #
> 
> -# Nothing is being built so there is no need for the cross-compiler.
> -INHIBIT_DEFAULT_DEPS = "1"
> -
>  # Skip the unwanted steps
>  do_configure[noexec] = "1"
>  do_compile[noexec] = "1"
> --
> 2.35.3

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

[Peter Kjellerstedt]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Max Krummenacher <max.oss.09@gmail.com>
> Sent: den 27 augusti 2023 10:10
> To: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Peter Kjellerstedt
> <peter.kjellerstedt@axis.com>
> Cc: Max Krummenacher <max.krummenacher@toradex.com>; Randolph Sapp
> <rs@ti.com>
> Subject: [oe][OE-core][Patch 0/1] Revert "bin_package.bbclass: Inhibit the
> default dependencies"
> 
> 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?

Bummer. I guess we will have to update our recipes individually 
instead. :(

> 
> 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

//Peter

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

[Max Krummenacher]

On Sun, Aug 27, 2023 at 11:23 PM Peter Kjellerstedt
<peter.kjellerstedt@axis.com> wrote:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Max Krummenacher <max.oss.09@gmail.com>
> > Sent: den 27 augusti 2023 10:10
> > To: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Peter Kjellerstedt
> > <peter.kjellerstedt@axis.com>
> > Cc: Max Krummenacher <max.krummenacher@toradex.com>; Randolph Sapp
> > <rs@ti.com>
> > Subject: [oe][OE-core][Patch 0/1] Revert "bin_package.bbclass: Inhibit the
> > default dependencies"
> >
> > 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?
>
> Bummer. I guess we will have to update our recipes individually
> instead. :(
>
> >
> > 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
>
> //Peter
>

From the bugzilla entry [1] which added the feature and from the commit
adding the class [2] it looks to me that the class should simplify adding
binaries externally built for the target.
Having the users of the class having to add the used libc / compiler
shared objects to not trigger a qa warning seems really wrong to me.

Additionally I don't see the advantage in not installing the base
dependencies. Doing anything usefull in a build would need to build
them anyway for some other recipe, so one would save creating a few
hard links. Do I miss something here?

So IMHO a recipe which inherits the class and really does not like the
default dependencies should add the `INHIBIT_DEFAULT_DEPS = "1"`.

Regards
Max

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

[Max Krummenacher]

On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 5:01 PM Max Krummenacher via
lists.openembedded.org <max.oss.09=gmail.com@lists.openembedded.org>
wrote:
>
> On Sun, Aug 27, 2023 at 11:23 PM Peter Kjellerstedt
> <peter.kjellerstedt@axis.com> wrote:
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Max Krummenacher <max.oss.09@gmail.com>
> > > Sent: den 27 augusti 2023 10:10
> > > To: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Peter Kjellerstedt
> > > <peter.kjellerstedt@axis.com>
> > > Cc: Max Krummenacher <max.krummenacher@toradex.com>; Randolph Sapp
> > > <rs@ti.com>
> > > Subject: [oe][OE-core][Patch 0/1] Revert "bin_package.bbclass: Inhibit the
> > > default dependencies"
> > >
> > > 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?
> >
> > Bummer. I guess we will have to update our recipes individually
> > instead. :(
> >
> > >
> > > 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
> >
> > //Peter
> >
>
> From the bugzilla entry [1] which added the feature and from the commit
> adding the class [2] it looks to me that the class should simplify adding
> binaries externally built for the target.
> Having the users of the class having to add the used libc / compiler
> shared objects to not trigger a qa warning seems really wrong to me.
>
> Additionally I don't see the advantage in not installing the base
> dependencies. Doing anything usefull in a build would need to build
> them anyway for some other recipe, so one would save creating a few
> hard links. Do I miss something here?
>
> So IMHO a recipe which inherits the class and really does not like the
> default dependencies should add the `INHIBIT_DEFAULT_DEPS = "1"`.

Adding the missing links, sorry about that:
[1] https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1592
[2] https://www.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/2012-September/067782.html

>
> Regards
> Max
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
> View/Reply Online (#186832): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/186832
> Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/100987453/3617484
> Group Owner: openembedded-core+owner@lists.openembedded.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [max.oss.09@gmail.com]
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>

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

[Randolph Sapp]

On 8/28/23 10:09, Max Krummenacher wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 5:01 PM Max Krummenacher via
> lists.openembedded.org <max.oss.09=gmail.com@lists.openembedded.org>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 27, 2023 at 11:23 PM Peter Kjellerstedt
>> <peter.kjellerstedt@axis.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Max Krummenacher <max.oss.09@gmail.com>
>>>> Sent: den 27 augusti 2023 10:10
>>>> To: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Peter Kjellerstedt
>>>> <peter.kjellerstedt@axis.com>
>>>> Cc: Max Krummenacher <max.krummenacher@toradex.com>; Randolph Sapp
>>>> <rs@ti.com>
>>>> Subject: [oe][OE-core][Patch 0/1] Revert "bin_package.bbclass: Inhibit the
>>>> default dependencies"
>>>>
>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> Bummer. I guess we will have to update our recipes individually
>>> instead. :(
>>
>>  From the bugzilla entry [1] which added the feature and from the commit
>> adding the class [2] it looks to me that the class should simplify adding
>> binaries externally built for the target.
>> Having the users of the class having to add the used libc / compiler
>> shared objects to not trigger a qa warning seems really wrong to me.
>>
>> Additionally I don't see the advantage in not installing the base
>> dependencies. Doing anything usefull in a build would need to build
>> them anyway for some other recipe, so one would save creating a few
>> hard links. Do I miss something here?
>>
>> So IMHO a recipe which inherits the class and really does not like the
>> default dependencies should add the `INHIBIT_DEFAULT_DEPS = "1"`.
> 
> Adding the missing links, sorry about that:
> [1] https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1592
> [2] https://www.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/2012-September/067782.html

Thanks for bringing this to light Max. I have no opinion in this. I 
understand not wanting to implicitly depending on anything. After all, 
explicit is always nice for those that don't want to navigate the full 
include chain to figure out recipe dependencies. It's also nicer for a 
minimal build (though arguably not in this case because these are core 
packages we're depending on).

If this is going to be the standard moving forward please let me know so 
I can update this recipe accordingly.

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

[Randolph Sapp]

On 8/28/23 11:22, Randolph Sapp wrote:
> On 8/28/23 10:09, Max Krummenacher wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 5:01 PM Max Krummenacher via
>> lists.openembedded.org <max.oss.09=gmail.com@lists.openembedded.org>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, Aug 27, 2023 at 11:23 PM Peter Kjellerstedt
>>> <peter.kjellerstedt@axis.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Max Krummenacher <max.oss.09@gmail.com>
>>>>> Sent: den 27 augusti 2023 10:10
>>>>> To: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Peter Kjellerstedt
>>>>> <peter.kjellerstedt@axis.com>
>>>>> Cc: Max Krummenacher <max.krummenacher@toradex.com>; Randolph Sapp
>>>>> <rs@ti.com>
>>>>> Subject: [oe][OE-core][Patch 0/1] Revert "bin_package.bbclass: 
>>>>> Inhibit the
>>>>> default dependencies"
>>>>>
>>>>> 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?
>>>>
>>>> Bummer. I guess we will have to update our recipes individually
>>>> instead. :(
>>>
>>>  From the bugzilla entry [1] which added the feature and from the commit
>>> adding the class [2] it looks to me that the class should simplify 
>>> adding
>>> binaries externally built for the target.
>>> Having the users of the class having to add the used libc / compiler
>>> shared objects to not trigger a qa warning seems really wrong to me.
>>>
>>> Additionally I don't see the advantage in not installing the base
>>> dependencies. Doing anything usefull in a build would need to build
>>> them anyway for some other recipe, so one would save creating a few
>>> hard links. Do I miss something here?
>>>
>>> So IMHO a recipe which inherits the class and really does not like the
>>> default dependencies should add the `INHIBIT_DEFAULT_DEPS = "1"`.
>>
>> Adding the missing links, sorry about that:
>> [1] https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1592
>> [2] 
>> https://www.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/2012-September/067782.html
> 
> Thanks for bringing this to light Max. I have no opinion in this. I 
> understand not wanting to implicitly depending on anything. After all, 
> explicit is always nice for those that don't want to navigate the full 
> include chain to figure out recipe dependencies. It's also nicer for a 
> minimal build (though arguably not in this case because these are core 
> packages we're depending on).
> 
> If this is going to be the standard moving forward please let me know so 
> I can update this recipe accordingly.

Scratch that, I have an opinion now. Removing hidden base package 
dependencies that QA steps explicitly rely is a bad idea. Please revert 
this.

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

[Randolph Sapp]

On 8/28/23 14:45, Randolph Sapp wrote:
> On 8/28/23 11:22, Randolph Sapp wrote:
>> On 8/28/23 10:09, Max Krummenacher wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 5:01 PM Max Krummenacher via
>>> lists.openembedded.org <max.oss.09=gmail.com@lists.openembedded.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Aug 27, 2023 at 11:23 PM Peter Kjellerstedt
>>>> <peter.kjellerstedt@axis.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Max Krummenacher <max.oss.09@gmail.com>
>>>>>> Sent: den 27 augusti 2023 10:10
>>>>>> To: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Peter Kjellerstedt
>>>>>> <peter.kjellerstedt@axis.com>
>>>>>> Cc: Max Krummenacher <max.krummenacher@toradex.com>; Randolph Sapp
>>>>>> <rs@ti.com>
>>>>>> Subject: [oe][OE-core][Patch 0/1] Revert "bin_package.bbclass: 
>>>>>> Inhibit the
>>>>>> default dependencies"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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?
>>>>>
>>>>> Bummer. I guess we will have to update our recipes individually
>>>>> instead. :(
>>>>
>>>>  From the bugzilla entry [1] which added the feature and from the 
>>>> commit
>>>> adding the class [2] it looks to me that the class should simplify 
>>>> adding
>>>> binaries externally built for the target.
>>>> Having the users of the class having to add the used libc / compiler
>>>> shared objects to not trigger a qa warning seems really wrong to me.
>>>>
>>>> Additionally I don't see the advantage in not installing the base
>>>> dependencies. Doing anything usefull in a build would need to build
>>>> them anyway for some other recipe, so one would save creating a few
>>>> hard links. Do I miss something here?
>>>>
>>>> So IMHO a recipe which inherits the class and really does not like the
>>>> default dependencies should add the `INHIBIT_DEFAULT_DEPS = "1"`.
>>>
>>> Adding the missing links, sorry about that:
>>> [1] https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1592
>>> [2] 
>>> https://www.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/2012-September/067782.html
>>
>> Thanks for bringing this to light Max. I have no opinion in this. I 
>> understand not wanting to implicitly depending on anything. After all, 
>> explicit is always nice for those that don't want to navigate the full 
>> include chain to figure out recipe dependencies. It's also nicer for a 
>> minimal build (though arguably not in this case because these are core 
>> packages we're depending on).
>>
>> If this is going to be the standard moving forward please let me know 
>> so I can update this recipe accordingly.
> 
> Scratch that, I have an opinion now. Removing hidden base package 
> dependencies that QA steps explicitly rely is a bad idea. Please revert 
> this.

Or at least have the insane.bbclass class introduce it's required 
dependencies itself, as that seems more logical than having a generic 
base group anyway.

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

[Ryan Eatmon]

On 8/27/2023 4:23 PM, Peter Kjellerstedt wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Max Krummenacher <max.oss.09@gmail.com>
>> Sent: den 27 augusti 2023 10:10
>> To: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Peter Kjellerstedt
>> <peter.kjellerstedt@axis.com>
>> Cc: Max Krummenacher <max.krummenacher@toradex.com>; Randolph Sapp
>> <rs@ti.com>
>> Subject: [oe][OE-core][Patch 0/1] Revert "bin_package.bbclass: Inhibit the
>> default dependencies"
>>
>> 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?
> 
> Bummer. I guess we will have to update our recipes individually
> instead. :(

Was there some issue that your patch was seeking to solve?  There was 
not much explanation in your patch or discussion about it on the mailing 
list before it was accepted.

Or did this just seem like something to do since this class doesn't 
build anything?

Just looking for background.

Your commit is also the source of another error with this the same 
ti-img-rogue-umlibs recipe that I've been trying to track down all last 
week.  Max just beat me to finding it.

I'm voting to revert your patch unless there is compelling reason for 
your patch.

>>
>> 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
> 
> //Peter
> 
> 
> 
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
> View/Reply Online (#186807): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/186807
> Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/100987453/6551054
> Group Owner: openembedded-core+owner@lists.openembedded.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [reatmon@ti.com]
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> 

-- 
Ryan Eatmon                reatmon@ti.com
-----------------------------------------
Texas Instruments, Inc.  -  LCPD  -  MGTS

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

[Peter Kjellerstedt]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ryan Eatmon <reatmon@ti.com>
> Sent: den 28 augusti 2023 19:10
> To: Peter Kjellerstedt <peter.kjellerstedt@axis.com>; Max Krummenacher
> <max.oss.09@gmail.com>; openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> Cc: Max Krummenacher <max.krummenacher@toradex.com>; Randolph Sapp
> <rs@ti.com>
> Subject: Re: [oe][OE-core][Patch 0/1] Revert "bin_package.bbclass: Inhibit
> the default dependencies"
> 
> On 8/27/2023 4:23 PM, Peter Kjellerstedt wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Max Krummenacher <max.oss.09@gmail.com>
> >> Sent: den 27 augusti 2023 10:10
> >> To: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Peter Kjellerstedt
> >> <peter.kjellerstedt@axis.com>
> >> Cc: Max Krummenacher <max.krummenacher@toradex.com>; Randolph Sapp
> >> <rs@ti.com>
> >> Subject: [oe][OE-core][Patch 0/1] Revert "bin_package.bbclass: Inhibit the
> >> default dependencies"
> >>
> >> 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?
> >
> > Bummer. I guess we will have to update our recipes individually
> > instead. :(
> 
> Was there some issue that your patch was seeking to solve?  There was
> not much explanation in your patch or discussion about it on the mailing
> list before it was accepted.
> 
> Or did this just seem like something to do since this class doesn't
> build anything?

It just seemed logical that since nothing is built, there should be 
no need for the compiler. I did, however, miss the potential need for 
the runtime libraries.
 
> Just looking for background.
> 
> Your commit is also the source of another error with this the same
> ti-img-rogue-umlibs recipe that I've been trying to track down all last
> week.  Max just beat me to finding it.
> 
> I'm voting to revert your patch unless there is compelling reason for
> your patch.

If it was not obvious from my response above, I am in favor of reverting 
my change since the errors reported by Max obviously was not part of my 
use case and did not affect any of our recipes.

//Peter

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

[Peter Kjellerstedt]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org <openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org> On Behalf Of Peter Kjellerstedt
> Sent: den 31 augusti 2023 19:28
> To: Ryan Eatmon <reatmon@ti.com>; Max Krummenacher <max.oss.09@gmail.com>; openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> Cc: Max Krummenacher <max.krummenacher@toradex.com>; Randolph Sapp <rs@ti.com>
> Subject: Re: [oe][OE-core][Patch 0/1] Revert "bin_package.bbclass: Inhibit the default dependencies"
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ryan Eatmon <reatmon@ti.com>
> > Sent: den 28 augusti 2023 19:10
> > To: Peter Kjellerstedt <peter.kjellerstedt@axis.com>; Max Krummenacher <max.oss.09@gmail.com>; openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> > Cc: Max Krummenacher <max.krummenacher@toradex.com>; Randolph Sapp <rs@ti.com>
> > Subject: Re: [oe][OE-core][Patch 0/1] Revert "bin_package.bbclass: Inhibit the default dependencies"
> >
> > On 8/27/2023 4:23 PM, Peter Kjellerstedt wrote:
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Max Krummenacher <max.oss.09@gmail.com>
> > >> Sent: den 27 augusti 2023 10:10
> > >> To: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Peter Kjellerstedt
> > >> <peter.kjellerstedt@axis.com>
> > >> Cc: Max Krummenacher <max.krummenacher@toradex.com>; Randolph Sapp
> > >> <rs@ti.com>
> > >> Subject: [oe][OE-core][Patch 0/1] Revert "bin_package.bbclass: Inhibit the
> > >> default dependencies"
> > >>
> > >> 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?
> > >
> > > Bummer. I guess we will have to update our recipes individually
> > > instead. :(
> >
> > Was there some issue that your patch was seeking to solve?  There was
> > not much explanation in your patch or discussion about it on the mailing
> > list before it was accepted.
> >
> > Or did this just seem like something to do since this class doesn't
> > build anything?
> 
> It just seemed logical that since nothing is built, there should be
> no need for the compiler. I did, however, miss the potential need for
> the runtime libraries.
> 
> > Just looking for background.
> >
> > Your commit is also the source of another error with this the same
> > ti-img-rogue-umlibs recipe that I've been trying to track down all last
> > week.  Max just beat me to finding it.
> >
> > I'm voting to revert your patch unless there is compelling reason for
> > your patch.
> 
> If it was not obvious from my response above, I am in favor of reverting
> my change since the errors reported by Max obviously was not part of my
> use case and did not affect any of our recipes.
> 
> //Peter

Please apply Max' revert. I thought it was applied back in August when 
this was discussed, but it apparently never happened.

//Peter