[OE-core] [PATCH] Revert "kmod: Use base_libdir for installing libkmod"

[Koen Kooi]

Op 17 mei 2012, om 23:02 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven:

> On Thu, 2012-05-17 at 22:44 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote:
>> Op 17 mei 2012 om 22:29 heeft Richard Purdie <richard.purdie at linuxfoundation.org> het volgende geschreven:
>> 
>>> On Tue, 2012-05-15 at 13:54 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
>>>> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 2:32 AM, Koen Kooi <koen at dominion.thruhere.net> wrote:
>>>>> The commit breaks pkgconfig and after discussing it with the kmod and udev maintainers the conclusion was reached that putting the libraries in /lib instead of /usr/lib is not supported.
>>>>> 
>>>>> This reverts commit 6b74f2461735272bd950a4f060dab6e778a36f92.
>>>> 
>>>> while this is what I had initially it doesn't go well with kmod living in
>>>> /sbin and accessing libraries from /usr due to our QA checks although
>>>> I am all for simplifying it where we don't make this check at all.
>>> 
>>> I've had requests for it along with a commitment to fix it and patches.
>>> If we decide we don't want this, fine and that will be the case if
>>> patches are not forthcoming to fix the QA issues. I don't think we've
>>> reached that point at this with that yet.
>>> 
>>> I've decided to accept this patch and "unbreak" meta-oe/udev at the
>>> expense of screwing up OE-Core. I am however still deeply unhappy people
>>> are trying to bypass OE-Core this way and then "blackmail" OE-Core using
>>> breaking meta-oe as a reason. The whole systemd thing has been badly
>>> handled and needs to get fixed properly.
>> 
>> What does systemd have to do with this?
> 
> Why does meta-oe has its own udev recipe? Is systemd related to that at
> all?
> 
>> This is about a broken commit breaking udev 182 for over a week.
> 
> OE-Core worked fine and the commit fixes QA warnings which are now back.
> 
>> If you have issues with systemd, send patches to meta-oe to fix it. Or
>> at least bug reports that are more than the insinuations above. 
> 
> I looked in the README and followed that to other README files but
> couldn't find any indication about what to do with bugs other than write
> patches which I obviously don't have.
> 
> When will you be sending the patch to fix the QA warning your revert has
> introduced? Yes this is a rhetorical question since I've seen your view
> on this problem previously.

Those QA checks are a joke. I can fix the QA warnings by moving all kmod binaries to $bindir or $sbindir since binaries in /usr/bin and /usr/bin are exempt from the checks. That would break the split /usr case as well.  These checks are global as well when they only should apply to recipes needed to get /usr mounted.

That's why I consider the current checks misguided and harmfull. As seen from the breakage it allows people to break pkgconfig, which didn't get picked up by QA checks. And then it turns out that you an fix the QA warnings in such a way that it breaks the intent of the warnings.

But this is all a false dillemma, you could have merged Otavio's patch (which I Ack'ed) which supports split /usr and puts the pkgconfig in the right place.