[bitbake-devel] Question about the behavior and intent of recrdeptask

Masahiro Yamada masahiroy at kernel.org
Thu Jan 16 02:10:59 UTC 2020

On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 5:45 PM Richard Purdie
<richard.purdie at linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 2020-01-08 at 12:14 +0900, Masahiro Yamada wrote:
> > So, the concept of  "recursive dependency" sounds
> > somewhat odd to me.
> >
> > I guess I am missing important use-cases.
> > I'd like to know the reason why we need recrdeptask.
> FWIW your description sounds right. We need this flag for several
> reasons. Firstly, it models the behaviour older bitbake had before we
> switched to the full task model so it was partly there for
> compatibility.
> Secondly, it does serve a purpose. For example, if you do "bitbake
> core-image-sato" and have PACKAGE_CLASSES = "ipk deb rpm".
> In this case the user expects debs, rpms and ipks to all be generated
> (the do_package_write_{ipk|deb|rpm} tasks) to be run for all recipes
> involved in core-image-sato.
> Since we only build the rootfs for ipk, the debs and rpms wouldn't bet
> triggered unless we have the do_build[recrdepends] on do_build.
> If you really wanted the other behaviour you would run "bitbake core-
> image-sato -c image_complete" as in that sense the build task is
> otherwise pointless.
> It is a weird dependency though, I agree.

Thanks for the reply.
I see do_package_write_* works based on recrdeptask.

I do not like this complicated feature honestly,
but I am not skilled enough to propose any alternative
solution, so I will live with it.

Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada

More information about the bitbake-devel mailing list