[RFC] gnome.bbclass change broke lots of package dependencies

[RFC] gnome.bbclass change broke lots of package dependencies

[Ihar Hrachyshka]

Hello to all!

Today I was working on bringing qt4-embedded toolchain to OE and found
the following problem with the last change
(4c275b5c0350ed1dbd94bfcdd9ce8786ad11b8a1) for gnome.bbclass.
Here is the problematic code snippet I'd like to discuss:

@@ -17,6 +17,9 @@ inherit autotools gtk-icon-cache pkgconfig gconf mime

 AUTOTOOLS_STAGE_PKGCONFIG = "1"

+PACKAGES =+ "${PN}-scrollkeeper-leftovers"
+FILES_${PN}-scrollkeeper-leftovers = "${localstatedir}/lib/scrollkeeper"
+
 gnome_stage_includes() {
        autotools_stage_includes
 }

As we can see, there is now ${PN}-scrollkeeper-leftovers package for
every recipe that inherited gnome.bbclass. And this -leftovers package
is in the current dependency chains (at least for qt4-embedded-dev
package).

At the first place, I'd like to get some explanation on the reason for
pushing the change in the tree. Git log is somehow ambiguous so I
can't understand the reason for doing the commit.

If it's really needed then we should resolve the following problems:
1) this new package (leftovers) is not generated for empty packages
resulting in broken dependency chains (as for gnome-vfs that is
somehow needed by qt4-embedded-dev);
2) this new package (leftovers) is not generated for *every* recipe
that was built *before* the change was made.

As for the 1st problem, I suggest adding ALLOW_EMPTY = "1" to
gnome.bbclass (it works for my current setup, and if you will approve
the change then I'll send the patch immediately).
As for the 2nd problem, there is a big question what should we do.
Revision bumping for every recipe that inherits gnome.bbclass is not
an elegant thing (though it will really push the change for all the
users). Maybe there is another, better way to handle such tasks. If
you know it please provide me with the info.

Thanks for help in advance,
Ihar Hrachyshka

Re: [RFC] gnome.bbclass change broke lots of package dependencies

[Phil Blundell]

On Mon, 2009-05-25 at 12:07 +0300, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
> @@ -17,6 +17,9 @@ inherit autotools gtk-icon-cache pkgconfig gconf mime
> 
>  AUTOTOOLS_STAGE_PKGCONFIG = "1"
> 
> +PACKAGES =+ "${PN}-scrollkeeper-leftovers"
> +FILES_${PN}-scrollkeeper-leftovers = "${localstatedir}/lib/scrollkeeper"
> +
>  gnome_stage_includes() {
>         autotools_stage_includes
>  }
> 
> As we can see, there is now ${PN}-scrollkeeper-leftovers package for
> every recipe that inherited gnome.bbclass. And this -leftovers package
> is in the current dependency chains (at least for qt4-embedded-dev
> package).

Where is your dependency on -scrollkeeper-leftovers coming from?
Nothing in the patch that you quoted looks like it ought to be causing
that.

That said, the patch does look a bit bizarre: as a general rule we don't
package things from ${localstatedir} since lots of targets have that as
a ramdisk.  It isn't obvious to me what this is going to achieve.

> As for the 1st problem, I suggest adding ALLOW_EMPTY = "1" to
> gnome.bbclass (it works for my current setup, and if you will approve
> the change then I'll send the patch immediately).

No, this would be a poor solution since it will cause a mass of empty
(and hence useless) packages to be generated.  It would be better to
identify the place where the dependency on this package is generated,
and suppress that at its source if the package is empty.

> As for the 2nd problem, there is a big question what should we do.
> Revision bumping for every recipe that inherits gnome.bbclass is not
> an elegant thing (though it will really push the change for all the
> users). Maybe there is another, better way to handle such tasks. If
> you know it please provide me with the info.

The right answer to this probably depends on the answer to what the
patch was trying to accomplish in the first place.  It's possible that
no rebuild is actually necessary for already-deployed packages if this
is intended to deal with some fringe case that only occurs on particular
targets or under rare circumstances.

p.

[PATCH] gnome.bbclass: remove unneeded scrollkeeper stuff from gnome packages.

[Ihar Hrachyshka]

Scrollkeeper generates its XML database for every package when
installing it. The problem is that while building it sees only specific
package scrollkeeper stuff so we get wrong scrollkeeper xml file
generated for every gnome.bbclass package. Including the file into every
gnome package results in package contents conflicts.

This patch removes a quick hack made by Koen with previous commit.

Signed-off-by: Ihar Hrachyshka <ihar.hrachyshka@gmail.com>
---
 classes/gnome.bbclass |    8 +++++---
 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/classes/gnome.bbclass b/classes/gnome.bbclass
index d2ca739..da88884 100644
--- a/classes/gnome.bbclass
+++ b/classes/gnome.bbclass
@@ -17,9 +17,11 @@ inherit autotools gtk-icon-cache pkgconfig gconf mime
 
 AUTOTOOLS_STAGE_PKGCONFIG = "1"
 
-PACKAGES =+ "${PN}-scrollkeeper-leftovers"
-FILES_${PN}-scrollkeeper-leftovers = "${localstatedir}/lib/scrollkeeper"
-
 gnome_stage_includes() {
 	autotools_stage_includes
 }
+
+do_install_append() {
+	rm -rf ${D}${localstatedir}/lib/scrollkeeper/*
+}
+
-- 
1.6.3.1

Re: [RFC] gnome.bbclass change broke lots of package dependencies

[Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov]

Phil Blundell wrote:

> On Mon, 2009-05-25 at 12:07 +0300, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
>> @@ -17,6 +17,9 @@ inherit autotools gtk-icon-cache pkgconfig gconf mime
>> 
>>  AUTOTOOLS_STAGE_PKGCONFIG = "1"
>> 
>> +PACKAGES =+ "${PN}-scrollkeeper-leftovers"
>> +FILES_${PN}-scrollkeeper-leftovers =
>> "${localstatedir}/lib/scrollkeeper" +
>>  gnome_stage_includes() {
>>         autotools_stage_includes
>>  }
>> 
>> As we can see, there is now ${PN}-scrollkeeper-leftovers package for
>> every recipe that inherited gnome.bbclass. And this -leftovers package
>> is in the current dependency chains (at least for qt4-embedded-dev
>> package).
> 
> Where is your dependency on -scrollkeeper-leftovers coming from? Nothing
> in the patch that you quoted looks like it ought to be causing that.
> 
> That said, the patch does look a bit bizarre: as a general rule we don't
> package things from ${localstatedir} since lots of targets have that as
> a ramdisk.  It isn't obvious to me what this is going to achieve.

I can confirm the dependency part of this report. It's causing build
failures for me: see bug 5123. I've traced this to strange dependancies on
pango-scrollkeeper-leftovers from most of pango packages.



-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry

Re: [PATCH] gnome.bbclass: remove unneeded scrollkeeper stuff from gnome packages.

[Phil Blundell]

On Mon, 2009-05-25 at 14:18 +0300, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
> Scrollkeeper generates its XML database for every package when
> installing it. The problem is that while building it sees only specific
> package scrollkeeper stuff so we get wrong scrollkeeper xml file
> generated for every gnome.bbclass package. Including the file into every
> gnome package results in package contents conflicts.
>  
> -PACKAGES =+ "${PN}-scrollkeeper-leftovers"
> -FILES_${PN}-scrollkeeper-leftovers = "${localstatedir}/lib/scrollkeeper"
> -
>  gnome_stage_includes() {
>  	autotools_stage_includes
>  }
> +
> +do_install_append() {
> +	rm -rf ${D}${localstatedir}/lib/scrollkeeper/*
> +}
> +

That change looks pretty reasonable to me, though maybe you want to
delete ${localstatedir}/lib/scrollkeeper itself (and its parents, if
they're empty) as well as the contents of the directory.

In the longer term I guess we should figure out a general-purpose
solution to all this scrollkeeper stuff.  I see that some packages are
configuring themselves --disable-scrollkeeper, others seem to be
patching the scrollkeeper bits out of their configure scripts and yet
others (notably empathy) have, effectively, a local copy of the bits
you've just removed from gnome.bbclass.

p.

Re: [PATCH] gnome.bbclass: remove unneeded scrollkeeper stuff from gnome packages.

[Ihar Hrachyshka]

Any chance we can get it in tree? This dependency bug is rather annoying.

On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 2:18 PM, Ihar Hrachyshka
<ihar.hrachyshka@gmail.com> wrote:
> Scrollkeeper generates its XML database for every package when
> installing it. The problem is that while building it sees only specific
> package scrollkeeper stuff so we get wrong scrollkeeper xml file
> generated for every gnome.bbclass package. Including the file into every
> gnome package results in package contents conflicts.
>
> This patch removes a quick hack made by Koen with previous commit.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ihar Hrachyshka <ihar.hrachyshka@gmail.com>
> ---
>  classes/gnome.bbclass |    8 +++++---
>  1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/classes/gnome.bbclass b/classes/gnome.bbclass
> index d2ca739..da88884 100644
> --- a/classes/gnome.bbclass
> +++ b/classes/gnome.bbclass
> @@ -17,9 +17,11 @@ inherit autotools gtk-icon-cache pkgconfig gconf mime
>
>  AUTOTOOLS_STAGE_PKGCONFIG = "1"
>
> -PACKAGES =+ "${PN}-scrollkeeper-leftovers"
> -FILES_${PN}-scrollkeeper-leftovers = "${localstatedir}/lib/scrollkeeper"
> -
>  gnome_stage_includes() {
>        autotools_stage_includes
>  }
> +
> +do_install_append() {
> +       rm -rf ${D}${localstatedir}/lib/scrollkeeper/*
> +}
> +
> --
> 1.6.3.1
>
>

Re: [PATCH] gnome.bbclass: remove unneeded scrollkeeper stuff from gnome packages.

[Tom Rini]

On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 01:17:53PM +0100, Phil Blundell wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-05-25 at 14:18 +0300, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
> > Scrollkeeper generates its XML database for every package when
> > installing it. The problem is that while building it sees only specific
> > package scrollkeeper stuff so we get wrong scrollkeeper xml file
> > generated for every gnome.bbclass package. Including the file into every
> > gnome package results in package contents conflicts.
> >  
> > -PACKAGES =+ "${PN}-scrollkeeper-leftovers"
> > -FILES_${PN}-scrollkeeper-leftovers = "${localstatedir}/lib/scrollkeeper"
> > -
> >  gnome_stage_includes() {
> >  	autotools_stage_includes
> >  }
> > +
> > +do_install_append() {
> > +	rm -rf ${D}${localstatedir}/lib/scrollkeeper/*
> > +}
> > +
> 
> That change looks pretty reasonable to me, though maybe you want to
> delete ${localstatedir}/lib/scrollkeeper itself (and its parents, if
> they're empty) as well as the contents of the directory.
> 
> In the longer term I guess we should figure out a general-purpose
> solution to all this scrollkeeper stuff.  I see that some packages are
> configuring themselves --disable-scrollkeeper, others seem to be
> patching the scrollkeeper bits out of their configure scripts and yet
> others (notably empathy) have, effectively, a local copy of the bits
> you've just removed from gnome.bbclass.

Do you want more changes still?  I don't see a SOB line, so...  Thanks.

-- 
Tom Rini

Re: [PATCH] gnome.bbclass: remove unneeded scrollkeeper stuff from gnome packages.

[Tom Rini]

On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 01:53:15PM -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 01:17:53PM +0100, Phil Blundell wrote:
> > On Mon, 2009-05-25 at 14:18 +0300, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
> > > Scrollkeeper generates its XML database for every package when
> > > installing it. The problem is that while building it sees only specific
> > > package scrollkeeper stuff so we get wrong scrollkeeper xml file
> > > generated for every gnome.bbclass package. Including the file into every
> > > gnome package results in package contents conflicts.
> > >  
> > > -PACKAGES =+ "${PN}-scrollkeeper-leftovers"
> > > -FILES_${PN}-scrollkeeper-leftovers = "${localstatedir}/lib/scrollkeeper"
> > > -
> > >  gnome_stage_includes() {
> > >  	autotools_stage_includes
> > >  }
> > > +
> > > +do_install_append() {
> > > +	rm -rf ${D}${localstatedir}/lib/scrollkeeper/*
> > > +}
> > > +
> > 
> > That change looks pretty reasonable to me, though maybe you want to
> > delete ${localstatedir}/lib/scrollkeeper itself (and its parents, if
> > they're empty) as well as the contents of the directory.
> > 
> > In the longer term I guess we should figure out a general-purpose
> > solution to all this scrollkeeper stuff.  I see that some packages are
> > configuring themselves --disable-scrollkeeper, others seem to be
> > patching the scrollkeeper bits out of their configure scripts and yet
> > others (notably empathy) have, effectively, a local copy of the bits
> > you've just removed from gnome.bbclass.
> 
> Do you want more changes still?  I don't see a SOB line, so...  Thanks.

Er, Acked-by line.

-- 
Tom Rini

Re: [PATCH] gnome.bbclass: remove unneeded scrollkeeper stuff from gnome packages.

[Ihar Hrachyshka]

On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 11:53 PM, Tom Rini <trini@embeddedalley.com> wrote:
> On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 01:17:53PM +0100, Phil Blundell wrote:
>> On Mon, 2009-05-25 at 14:18 +0300, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
>> > Scrollkeeper generates its XML database for every package when
>> > installing it. The problem is that while building it sees only specific
>> > package scrollkeeper stuff so we get wrong scrollkeeper xml file
>> > generated for every gnome.bbclass package. Including the file into every
>> > gnome package results in package contents conflicts.
>> >
>> > -PACKAGES =+ "${PN}-scrollkeeper-leftovers"
>> > -FILES_${PN}-scrollkeeper-leftovers = "${localstatedir}/lib/scrollkeeper"
>> > -
>> >  gnome_stage_includes() {
>> >     autotools_stage_includes
>> >  }
>> > +
>> > +do_install_append() {
>> > +   rm -rf ${D}${localstatedir}/lib/scrollkeeper/*
>> > +}
>> > +
>>
>> That change looks pretty reasonable to me, though maybe you want to
>> delete ${localstatedir}/lib/scrollkeeper itself (and its parents, if
>> they're empty) as well as the contents of the directory.
>>
>> In the longer term I guess we should figure out a general-purpose
>> solution to all this scrollkeeper stuff.  I see that some packages are
>> configuring themselves --disable-scrollkeeper, others seem to be
>> patching the scrollkeeper bits out of their configure scripts and yet
>> others (notably empathy) have, effectively, a local copy of the bits
>> you've just removed from gnome.bbclass.
>
> Do you want more changes still?  I don't see a SOB line, so...  Thanks.

Should I resend the patch with SOB included?

>
> --
> Tom Rini
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
>

Re: [PATCH] gnome.bbclass: remove unneeded scrollkeeper stuff from gnome packages.

[Tom Rini]

On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 12:00:03AM +0300, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
> On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 11:53 PM, Tom Rini <trini@embeddedalley.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 01:17:53PM +0100, Phil Blundell wrote:
> >> On Mon, 2009-05-25 at 14:18 +0300, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
> >> > Scrollkeeper generates its XML database for every package when
> >> > installing it. The problem is that while building it sees only specific
> >> > package scrollkeeper stuff so we get wrong scrollkeeper xml file
> >> > generated for every gnome.bbclass package. Including the file into every
> >> > gnome package results in package contents conflicts.
> >> >
> >> > -PACKAGES =+ "${PN}-scrollkeeper-leftovers"
> >> > -FILES_${PN}-scrollkeeper-leftovers = "${localstatedir}/lib/scrollkeeper"
> >> > -
> >> >  gnome_stage_includes() {
> >> >     autotools_stage_includes
> >> >  }
> >> > +
> >> > +do_install_append() {
> >> > +   rm -rf ${D}${localstatedir}/lib/scrollkeeper/*
> >> > +}
> >> > +
> >>
> >> That change looks pretty reasonable to me, though maybe you want to
> >> delete ${localstatedir}/lib/scrollkeeper itself (and its parents, if
> >> they're empty) as well as the contents of the directory.
> >>
> >> In the longer term I guess we should figure out a general-purpose
> >> solution to all this scrollkeeper stuff.  I see that some packages are
> >> configuring themselves --disable-scrollkeeper, others seem to be
> >> patching the scrollkeeper bits out of their configure scripts and yet
> >> others (notably empathy) have, effectively, a local copy of the bits
> >> you've just removed from gnome.bbclass.
> >
> > Do you want more changes still?  I don't see a SOB line, so...  Thanks.
> 
> Should I resend the patch with SOB included?

Your submission was done correctly, sorry.  Asking Phil if he has
anymore requests, or if this is OK to be pushed now.

-- 
Tom Rini

Re: [PATCH] gnome.bbclass: remove unneeded scrollkeeper stuff from gnome packages.

[Phil Blundell]

On Sat, 2009-05-30 at 13:53 -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 01:17:53PM +0100, Phil Blundell wrote:
> > On Mon, 2009-05-25 at 14:18 +0300, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
> > > Scrollkeeper generates its XML database for every package when
> > > installing it. The problem is that while building it sees only specific
> > > package scrollkeeper stuff so we get wrong scrollkeeper xml file
> > > generated for every gnome.bbclass package. Including the file into every
> > > gnome package results in package contents conflicts.
> > >  
> > > -PACKAGES =+ "${PN}-scrollkeeper-leftovers"
> > > -FILES_${PN}-scrollkeeper-leftovers = "${localstatedir}/lib/scrollkeeper"
> > > -
> > >  gnome_stage_includes() {
> > >  	autotools_stage_includes
> > >  }
> > > +
> > > +do_install_append() {
> > > +	rm -rf ${D}${localstatedir}/lib/scrollkeeper/*
> > > +}
> > > +
> > 
> > That change looks pretty reasonable to me, though maybe you want to
> > delete ${localstatedir}/lib/scrollkeeper itself (and its parents, if
> > they're empty) as well as the contents of the directory.
> > 
> > In the longer term I guess we should figure out a general-purpose
> > solution to all this scrollkeeper stuff.  I see that some packages are
> > configuring themselves --disable-scrollkeeper, others seem to be
> > patching the scrollkeeper bits out of their configure scripts and yet
> > others (notably empathy) have, effectively, a local copy of the bits
> > you've just removed from gnome.bbclass.
> 
> Do you want more changes still?  I don't see a SOB line, so...  Thanks.

I think it's fine to go in as it is.  We can always enhance it later.

p.

Re: [PATCH] gnome.bbclass: remove unneeded scrollkeeper stuff from gnome packages.

[Phil Blundell]

On Sun, 2009-05-31 at 00:06 +0100, Phil Blundell wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-05-30 at 13:53 -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
> > On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 01:17:53PM +0100, Phil Blundell wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2009-05-25 at 14:18 +0300, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
> > > > Scrollkeeper generates its XML database for every package when
> > > > installing it. The problem is that while building it sees only specific
> > > > package scrollkeeper stuff so we get wrong scrollkeeper xml file
> > > > generated for every gnome.bbclass package. Including the file into every
> > > > gnome package results in package contents conflicts.
> > > >  
> > > > -PACKAGES =+ "${PN}-scrollkeeper-leftovers"
> > > > -FILES_${PN}-scrollkeeper-leftovers = "${localstatedir}/lib/scrollkeeper"
> > > > -
> > > >  gnome_stage_includes() {
> > > >  	autotools_stage_includes
> > > >  }
> > > > +
> > > > +do_install_append() {
> > > > +	rm -rf ${D}${localstatedir}/lib/scrollkeeper/*
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > 
> > > That change looks pretty reasonable to me, though maybe you want to
> > > delete ${localstatedir}/lib/scrollkeeper itself (and its parents, if
> > > they're empty) as well as the contents of the directory.
> > > 
> > > In the longer term I guess we should figure out a general-purpose
> > > solution to all this scrollkeeper stuff.  I see that some packages are
> > > configuring themselves --disable-scrollkeeper, others seem to be
> > > patching the scrollkeeper bits out of their configure scripts and yet
> > > others (notably empathy) have, effectively, a local copy of the bits
> > > you've just removed from gnome.bbclass.
> > 
> > Do you want more changes still?  I don't see a SOB line, so...  Thanks.
> 
> I think it's fine to go in as it is.  We can always enhance it later.

Per Tom's request :-)

Acked-by: Phil Blundell <philb@gnu.org>

p.