Re: [RFC] update lib_package.bbclass

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

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

On 19-10-10 20:01, Andreas Oberritter wrote:
> On 10/18/2010 01:41 PM, Andreas Oberritter wrote:
>> On 10/18/2010 12:48 PM, Koen Kooi wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, .a files are supposed to go into -static, not into -dev.
>>>
> 
> [...]
> 
>> The problem was that I trusted lib_package to do the right thing. So the
>> real fix would be to add a -static package to lib_package.bbclass and to
>> add RDEPENDS_${PN}-static += "${PN}-dev" somewhere, because static libs
>> don't make much sense without develompent headers, right?
>>
>> Of course, this would create a different problem with upgrades, but I
>> would suspect that the number of users of static libraries on their
>> target machines is relatively small and, because a disappearing static
>> library doesn't create runtime problems, the installation of a new
>> -static package wouldn't impose a huge burden to the user.
>>
>> In case this solution was accepted: What's the policy for changing files
>> like lib_package.bbclass, in order to trigger an update of all relevant
>> packages? To bump every single PR?
> 
> I looked deeper into lib_package.bbclass and its history and I saw that
> it wasn't updated very often during the last years. It still uses
> hardcoded paths and doesn't include some files which would get packaged
> without lib_package.bbclass.
> 
> What lib_package.bbclass does now, compared to the defaults from
> bitbake.conf:
> 
> 1.) It adds ${libdir}/*.a and /lib/*.a to FILES_${PN}-dev.
> 
> 2.) It adds ${bindir}/*-config to FILES_${PN}-dev.
> 
> 3.) It creates an additional package ${PN}-bin, which contains all other
> executables: ${bindir}/* ${sbindir}/* /bin/* /sbin/*
> 
> 4.) It doesn't package any of the following:
>             ${datadir}/pixmaps ${datadir}/applications \
>             ${datadir}/idl ${datadir}/omf ${datadir}/sounds \
>             ${libdir}/bonobo/servers
> 
> In f624db1d3c7de3fcb3a9e76d388a8f9f8fedcf5c, Koen introduced
> ${PN}-static packages, but lib_package.bbclass has not been updated
> since then, which was one year ago.
> 
> Although it packages ${bindir}/*-config into FILES_${PN}-dev, it does
> not include the required mangling applied by binconfig.bbclass. I think
> that's wrong and just causes unnecessary confusion. IMO, lib_package
> should either inherit binconfig or not, but leave FILES_${PN}-dev
> untouched in any case.
> 
> Leaving FILES_${PN}-dev untouched would also allow lib_package to
> automatically inherit some updates from bitbake.conf and to create
> non-empty ${PN}-static packages.
> 
> I don't know whether #4 should be changed or whether those directories
> were left out on purpose.
> 
> So, my current proposal looks like this:
> 
> -
> inherit binconfig	# ... or not
> 
> PACKAGES += "${PN}-bin"
> 
> FILES_${PN} = "${libexecdir}/* ${libdir}/lib*${SOLIBS} \
>             ${sysconfdir} ${sharedstatedir} ${localstatedir} \
>             ${base_libdir}/*${SOLIBS} \
>             ${datadir}/${PN} ${libdir}/${PN}/*"
> 
> FILES_${PN}-bin = "${bindir}/* ${sbindir}/* \
>                 ${base_bindir}/* ${base_sbindir}/*"
> -
> 

How about this one:

inherit binconfig

PACKAGES =+ "${PN}-bin"
FILES_${PN}-bin = "${bindir}/* ${sbindir}/* \
                   ${base_bindir}* ${base_sbindir}/*"


Does that work for you?

regards,

Koen

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

iD8DBQFMvp6FMkyGM64RGpERAmsTAJ0YDhVIcbXL59cei5Jrturv3zn6HwCfXydS
APscbmlBpvYasE+7O+99ksE=
=G5lN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----