On 13.02.2024 16:19, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > Tested and works too, but I see this patch was reverted: > > > Revert "protobuf: stage protoc binary to sysroot" > > This reverts commit a0557fe5433620717eeb00d3b16801711337b1a4. > > As said by Ross[Ø]: > "Putting the _target_ protoc into the sysroot for executation at _build_ > time isn't useful because even if it has the right architecture, the > tune might be incompatible. Recipes which want protoc should just depend > on protobuf-native." > > This has been reverted recently by Samuli[1]: > "If protoc is enabled for the build, recipes using protobuf will > fail when protoc is not available in the recipe sysroot" > > Be the revert is incorret as This is an issue coming from qtgrpc > other recipes that use protobuf or gRPC compiler, proplery looks for > the binary in the correct sysroot folder. > > Qtgrpc recipe should fix this issue at the recipe level, for example this > is what I've done for "etcd-cpp-apiv3" recipe[2] that doesn't need this > patch to properly compile. > > So keeping this hack doesn't seems to be a correct fix. > > Note that qtgrpc recipe isn't available on meta-oe nor any other public > layers. > > 0:https://patchwork.yoctoproject.org/project/oe/patch/20230904161230.377450-1-ross.burton@arm.com/ > 1:https://patchwork.yoctoproject.org/project/oe/patch/20230927051101.3088498-1-samuli.piippo@qt.io/ > 2:https://github.com/etcd-cpp-apiv3/etcd-cpp-apiv3/commit/47f0d9e0326f3cc31c801a0ecf7312d1049ece3e > > CC: Samuli Piippo > CC: Ross Burton > Signed-off-by: Clément Péron > Signed-off-by: Khem Raj > (cherry picked from commit bfb626a23022d871ce3c0c64cb9e5d1cc17c737e) > Signed-off-by: Armin Kuster > > So then what is the correct fix for grpc ? > > Joakim > Reverted and then applied again :) If you are interested, see the full discussion here https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-devel/topic/101679410#105284 Slava