Re: proper way to express dependencies from meta-oe to meta-gnome?

[Martin Jansa <martin.jansa@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1523 bytes --]

On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 09:43:34AM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> 
>   for the entertainment value, while building for the beaglebone
> black, i did:
> 
>   $ bitbake -c fetchall world
> 
> and got:
> 
> ERROR: Nothing RPROVIDES 'gvfs' (but
> /home/rpjday/oe/dist/layers/meta-openembedded/meta-oe/recipes-support/tracker/tracker_0.14.2.bb
> RDEPENDS on or otherwise requires it)
> NOTE: Runtime target 'gvfs' is unbuildable, removing...
> Missing or unbuildable dependency chain was: ['gvfs']
> ERROR: Required build target 'tracker' has no buildable providers.
> Missing or unbuildable dependency chain was: ['tracker', 'gvfs']
> 
> and it's easy enough to see that, yes, tracker RDEPENDS on gvfs, which
> is defined in meta-gnome which is a layer i'm not including.
> 
>   so what is the preferred way to resolve stuff like that? is one
> simply supposed to *know* (or check) that tracker requires gvfs? or
> read the diagnostics and adjust accordingly?
> 
>   given that tracker's home page is at gnome.org, would it make more
> sense for tracker to be part of meta-gnome instead of meta-oe? just
> trying to understand how recipes are distributed among the layers.

As nothing else in meta-oe depends on tracker, easiest way to
resolve this is to move tracker to meta-gnome.

With optional dependencies it's common to use PACKAGECONFIG and let
people enable PACKAGECONFIG option only when they also have required
layer.

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

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 205 bytes --]