Re: About PACKAGECONFIG audit

[Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Thu, 2013-08-15 at 10:43 +0100, Phil Blundell wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-08-15 at 17:29 +0800, wenzong fan wrote:
> > Or could we run this check as part of a QA build step?
> 
> I think that could be done, in principle.  Now that "ld
> --no-copy-dt-needed-entries" is the default, there's no reason that the
> shlibs code in package.bbclass couldn't be taught to verify that all the
> shared library providers it identifies come from recipes that are listed
> in DEPENDS.  
> 
> The only difficulty is that you'd need to accept DEPENDS-of-DEPENDS
> (e.g. a recipe which DEPENDS on gtk+ but also links with libatk or
> something) and I don't think there's currently any straightforward way
> for package.bbclass to generate the recursive dependency chain for an
> arbitrary recipe.  An easy if inelegant workaround would be for it to
> just stash the value of ${DEPENDS} along with the other shlibs data that
> it writes out for each provider.

Bitbake itself has that information and I suspect we should share it to
tasks. The exact form of that would be the harder thing to determine...

Cheers,

Richard