[dizzy][PATCH] package.bbclass: Fix support for private libs

[dizzy][PATCH] package.bbclass: Fix support for private libs

[Martin Jansa]

* n is a tuple since this commit:
  commit d3aa7668a9f001044d0a0f1ba2de425a36056102
  Author: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
  Date:   Mon Jul 7 18:41:23 2014 +0100
  Subject package.bbclass: Improve shlibs needed data structure

  since then 'n in private_libs' was always false and private libs
  were always processed
* this is bad when we have libfoo in private libs, but also some package
  providing libfoo, that way we ship own libfoo.so, but together with
  runtime dependency on package providing libfoo

Signed-off-by: Martin Jansa <Martin.Jansa@gmail.com>
---
 meta/classes/package.bbclass | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/meta/classes/package.bbclass b/meta/classes/package.bbclass
index 96d7fd9..4685cd2 100644
--- a/meta/classes/package.bbclass
+++ b/meta/classes/package.bbclass
@@ -1572,7 +1572,7 @@ python package_do_shlibs() {
             # /opt/abc/lib/libfoo.so.1 and contains /usr/bin/abc depending on system library libfoo.so.1
             # but skipping it is still better alternative than providing own
             # version and then adding runtime dependency for the same system library
-            if private_libs and n in private_libs:
+            if private_libs and n[0] in private_libs:
                 bb.debug(2, '%s: Dependency %s covered by PRIVATE_LIBS' % (pkg, n[0]))
                 continue
             if n[0] in shlib_provider.keys():
-- 
2.2.1

Re: [dizzy][PATCH] package.bbclass: Fix support for private libs

[Martin Jansa]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1685 bytes --]

On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 05:12:13PM +0100, Martin Jansa wrote:
> * n is a tuple since this commit:
>   commit d3aa7668a9f001044d0a0f1ba2de425a36056102
>   Author: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
>   Date:   Mon Jul 7 18:41:23 2014 +0100
>   Subject package.bbclass: Improve shlibs needed data structure
> 
>   since then 'n in private_libs' was always false and private libs
>   were always processed
> * this is bad when we have libfoo in private libs, but also some package
>   providing libfoo, that way we ship own libfoo.so, but together with
>   runtime dependency on package providing libfoo

ping

> 
> Signed-off-by: Martin Jansa <Martin.Jansa@gmail.com>
> ---
>  meta/classes/package.bbclass | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/meta/classes/package.bbclass b/meta/classes/package.bbclass
> index 96d7fd9..4685cd2 100644
> --- a/meta/classes/package.bbclass
> +++ b/meta/classes/package.bbclass
> @@ -1572,7 +1572,7 @@ python package_do_shlibs() {
>              # /opt/abc/lib/libfoo.so.1 and contains /usr/bin/abc depending on system library libfoo.so.1
>              # but skipping it is still better alternative than providing own
>              # version and then adding runtime dependency for the same system library
> -            if private_libs and n in private_libs:
> +            if private_libs and n[0] in private_libs:
>                  bb.debug(2, '%s: Dependency %s covered by PRIVATE_LIBS' % (pkg, n[0]))
>                  continue
>              if n[0] in shlib_provider.keys():
> -- 
> 2.2.1
> 

-- 
Martin 'JaMa' Jansa     jabber: Martin.Jansa@gmail.com

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 188 bytes --]

Re: [dizzy][PATCH] package.bbclass: Fix support for private libs

[akuster808]

thanks for the reminder. I have pulled into my staging work.

-armin

On 01/29/2015 04:41 AM, Martin Jansa wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 05:12:13PM +0100, Martin Jansa wrote:
>> * n is a tuple since this commit:
>>    commit d3aa7668a9f001044d0a0f1ba2de425a36056102
>>    Author: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
>>    Date:   Mon Jul 7 18:41:23 2014 +0100
>>    Subject package.bbclass: Improve shlibs needed data structure
>>
>>    since then 'n in private_libs' was always false and private libs
>>    were always processed
>> * this is bad when we have libfoo in private libs, but also some package
>>    providing libfoo, that way we ship own libfoo.so, but together with
>>    runtime dependency on package providing libfoo
>
> ping
>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Martin Jansa <Martin.Jansa@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>   meta/classes/package.bbclass | 2 +-
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/meta/classes/package.bbclass b/meta/classes/package.bbclass
>> index 96d7fd9..4685cd2 100644
>> --- a/meta/classes/package.bbclass
>> +++ b/meta/classes/package.bbclass
>> @@ -1572,7 +1572,7 @@ python package_do_shlibs() {
>>               # /opt/abc/lib/libfoo.so.1 and contains /usr/bin/abc depending on system library libfoo.so.1
>>               # but skipping it is still better alternative than providing own
>>               # version and then adding runtime dependency for the same system library
>> -            if private_libs and n in private_libs:
>> +            if private_libs and n[0] in private_libs:
>>                   bb.debug(2, '%s: Dependency %s covered by PRIVATE_LIBS' % (pkg, n[0]))
>>                   continue
>>               if n[0] in shlib_provider.keys():
>> --
>> 2.2.1
>>
>
>
>