Re: [docs] [PATCH] variables.rst: expand explanation of RSUGGESTS

[Quentin Schulz <quentin.schulz@cherry.de>]

Hi Robert,

On 2/24/26 4:26 PM, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Feb 2026, Quentin Schulz wrote:
> 
>> Hi Robert,
>>
>> On 2/24/26 1:55 PM, Robert P. J. Day via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote:
>>> On Tue, 24 Feb 2026, Antonin Godard via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On Tue Feb 24, 2026 at 1:15 PM CET, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Add that the RSUGGESTS variable would be processed only by a
>>>>> supporting package manager when installing packages from a
>>>>> package feed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@crashcourse.ca>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/documentation/ref-manual/variables.rst
>>>>> b/documentation/ref-manual/variables.rst
>>>>> index 208b5e43d..92476d509 100644
>>>>> --- a/documentation/ref-manual/variables.rst
>>>>> +++ b/documentation/ref-manual/variables.rst
>>>>> @@ -8361,7 +8361,9 @@ system and gives an overview of their function and
>>>>> contents.
>>>>>       :term:`RSUGGESTS`
>>>>>          A list of additional packages that you can suggest for
>>>>> installation
>>>>>          by the package manager at the time a package is installed. Not
>>>>> all
>>>>> -      package managers support this functionality.
>>>>> +      package managers support this functionality. This feature takes
>>>>> effect
>>>>> +      only when the package manager is being used to install packages
>>>>> on
>>>>> +      the target system from a package feed.
>>>>
>>>> Could you add a link to the section explaining how to enable this?
>>>>
>>>> """
>>>> See the :ref:`dev-manual/packages:Using Runtime Package Management`
>>>> section of
>>>> the Yocto Project Development Tasks Manual for more information on the
>>>> package management feature.
>>>> """
>>>
>>>     oh, man, did this just open up a can of worms. if you check that
>>> section:
>>>
>>> https://docs.yoctoproject.org/dev-manual/packages.html#using-runtime-package-management
>>>
>>> it has no reference to RSUGGESTS, so sending readers there might be
>>> less than useful. so should some explanation of RSUGGESTS be added
>>> there to provide context?
>>>
>>>     and when i scroll to the top of that chapter:
>>>
>>> https://docs.yoctoproject.org/dev-manual/packages.html#
>>>
>>> the first section, "Excluding Package from an Image", mentions
>>> PACKAGE_EXCLUDE, but does not mention using IMAGE_INSTALL:remove,
>>
>> IMAGE_INSTALL:remove is *almost* always wrong.
>>
>> This only has an impact if the package is explicitly listed in IMAGE_INSTALL
>> variable. If that is the case, then instead of using :remove, simply do not
>> add it to IMAGE_INSTALL in the first place. If it's not in IMAGE_INSTALL,
>> using :remove will be a no-op.
>>
>> If the package is brought in as a dependency, you need to remove whatever
>> package you explicitly list in IMAGE_INSTALL that is bringing this package as
>> a dependency, which may not be possible without rebuilding the recipe with
>> different PACKAGECONFIG for example.
>>
>> If it's brought in as a light dependency (read RRECOMMENDS), then
>> BAD_RECOMMENDATIONS or NO_RECOMMENDATIONS should do the trick.
>>
>> PACKAGE_EXCLUDE will prevent building and then you can easily figure out which
>> packages that are to be installed in your image depend on the package you want
>> to exclude from your image. This is a good starting point to start debugging.
>>
>>> which is definitely used in places i've run across. should that also
>>> be mentioned as a way to exclude packages?
>>>
>>
>> Hard no from me. See above why I think it is a bad idea to tell people to do
>> that. Maybe we should actually explain why this is a bad idea as I see this
>> being repeated here and there.
> 
>    so would it be sufficient to simply add a note here:
> 
> https://docs.yoctoproject.org/dev-manual/packages.html#excluding-packages-from-an-image
> 
> stating that, while "IMAGE_INSTALL:remove" is occasionally seen as a
> way to omit a package from installation, this is almost always a bad
> idea and that "PACKAGE_EXCLUDE" is the proper way?
> 
>    that at least would warn developers off.
> 

A bit more info than that (see my initial mail), but I think it makes 
sense indeed.

Quentin