Re: [PATCH][dunfell] coreutils: don't split stdbuf to own package with single-binary

["Rasmus Villemoes" <rasmus.villemoes@prevas.dk>]

On 03/07/2020 11.19, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Fri, 2020-07-03 at 09:36 +0200, Rasmus Villemoes wrote:
>> Commit 992cec44 (coreutils: Move stdbuf into an own package
>> coreutils-stdbuf) breaks package-qa when the single-binary
>> PACKAGECONFIG is used:
>>
>> ERROR: coreutils-8.31-r0 do_package_qa: QA Issue: /usr/bin/stdbuf
>> contained in package coreutils-stdbuf requires /usr/bin/coreutils,
>> but no providers found in RDEPENDS_coreutils-stdbuf? [file-rdeps]
>> ERROR: coreutils-8.31-r0 do_package_qa: QA run found fatal errors.
>> Please consider fixing them.
> 
> Does this problem exist for other packages in coreutils?

What other packages? stdbuf is the only one being split to its own package:

coreutils/8.31-r0$ ls -l packages-split/
total 32
drwxr-xr-x 4 ravi abcdef 4096 Jul  3 09:49 coreutils
drwxr-xr-x 3 ravi abcdef 4096 Jul  3 09:50 coreutils-dbg
drwxr-xr-x 2 ravi abcdef 4096 Jul  3 09:49 coreutils-dev
drwxr-xr-x 3 ravi abcdef 4096 Jul  3 09:49 coreutils-doc
drwxr-xr-x 2 ravi abcdef 4096 Jul  3 09:49 coreutils-locale
-rw-r--r-- 1 ravi abcdef   48 Jul  3 09:49 coreutils.shlibdeps
drwxr-xr-x 3 ravi abcdef 4096 Jul  3 09:50 coreutils-src
drwxr-xr-x 2 ravi abcdef 4096 Jul  3 09:49 coreutils-staticdev


> I'd suspect it
> does in which case why is stdbuf special?

Because it's the only util that gets special packaging treatment. Unless
there's some magic 'please auto-split all utils to their own packages'
that I don't know about and which we don't happen to set.

> Whilst I realise there is a problem here is the correct fix not:
> 
> RDEPENDS_coreutils-stdbuf_class-target += "${@bb.utils.contains('PACKAGECONFIG', 'single-binary', '', 'coreutils', d)}"
> 
> ?

[Well, the coreutils should be in the true branch of that.] I dunno, it
creates a cyclic rdepends between coreutils and coreutils-stdbuf. Is
that ok? Seems a bit ugly to me, even if it would work.

> As Alex says, this would need to be merged in master before we can even
> consider it for dunfell.

I'll do it for master once I know which way you want to fix it.

Rasmus