Re: Issues with .list files

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

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

On 05-02-10 13:47, Philip Balister wrote:
> On 02/05/2010 07:37 AM, Koen Kooi wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 05-02-10 04:24, Michael Morrell wrote:
>>> If I understand the algorithm in package_do_shlibs correctly, each
>>> package creates a .list file which is a list of all the shared
>>> libraries provided by that package.  It also generates a list of all
>>> the libraries that it needs and looks for those in .list files
>>> created by other packages so it can create a runtime dependency
>>> against that package.
>>>
>>> The way it looks for .list files is to simply scan all *.list files
>>> in the directory.  This has two problems that I can see.
>>>
>>> First, it is inefficient.  It should only have to look through .list
>>> files creates by packages created by bb files which were DEPENDed on
>>> by this bb file.
>>
>> Ehm, no. If it did that you'd get missing shlibs in lots of cases. OE
>> won't error out, but you're stabbing users of the packages in the eye
>> since they get stuck with the mess.
> 
> But it does seem like using a library created by something the recipe
> does not DEPEND on is a problem that should be corrected sooner, rather
> than later.

That's certainly true, but the above approach is the complete wrong way
to go about it
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFLbCIvMkyGM64RGpERArNSAKC2XF79R9ioAzIgmOIngdPct8XQ/ACeLOwt
hfMnO8LI13yt9IfD9W8Xoak=
=JncI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----