Re: dependencies between packages

[Koen Kooi <k.kooi@student.utwente.nl>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 11-01-10 18:59, C Michael Sundius wrote:
> Some of our developers have been running into this problem and I'm wondering
> how others deal with it.
> 
> It seems if we have a recipe, (A) that depends upon header files staged by
> another recipe (B) then:
> 
> 1) if the source for recipe (B) is modified and recompiled with:
> 
>     bitbake -f -c compile B
>     bitbake B,
> 
> I would expect that when recipe A is run:
> 
>    bitbake A
> 
> It too would be recompiled, however that does not seem to be the case. In
> fact even if recipe B is cleaned up:
> 
>     bitbake -c clean B
> 
> and then we run recipe A
> 
>     bitbake A
> 
> only recipe B is run and recipe A is NOT rerun! the dependency is satisfied
> by rerunning recipe B and then bitbake stops..
> 
> is this expected behaviour?

Yes, although it's a bit counter intuitive from a buildsystem POV, but
we currently don't have a foolproof, distributed way of automatically
bumping PR for dependant packages, so we don't enable that rebuild
feature. It's no use rebuilding when the packagemanager won't notice
that the package has been updated.

> Is there away to force rerunning of recipes that
> would be "out of date" due to one of its dependent recipes being return and
> re-staging (potentially) new headers and libraries?

Have a look at BB_STAMP_POLICY, I forgot the details.

regards,

Koen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFLS3PSMkyGM64RGpERAnpGAJwIthWw2W383J1cW+OCu41oLUSqQgCfRYW/
DUlLsi+a3tcysXsxLnRa5Pg=
=Upuw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----