[OE-core] [PATCH] gtk+: don't provide gtk-update-icon-cache-native

[Andreas Müller]

On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Burton, Ross <ross.burton at intel.com> wrote:
> On 25 March 2013 23:47, Andreas Müller <schnitzeltony at googlemail.com> wrote:
>> fixes:
>> | ERROR: Multiple .bb files are due to be built which each provide virtual/gtk-update-icon-cache-native
>> | (/home/Superandy/data/oe-core/sources/openembedded-core/meta/recipes-gnome/gtk+/gtk-update-icon-cache-native_3.4.4.bb
>> | virtual:native:/home/Superandy/data/oe-core/sources/openembedded-core/meta/recipes-gnome/gtk+/gtk+_2.24.15.bb).
>> | This usually means one provides something the other doesn't and should.
>
> NACK.
>
> The only way this can happen is if something is depending on
> gtk+-native, as everything in oe-core (should) depends on
> virtual/gtk-update-icon-cache:
>
> commit f07515096ea39e267cd3ebeea08cffbba1af07e0
> Author: Ross Burton <ross.burton at intel.com>
> Date:   Mon Mar 4 12:52:45 2013 +0000
>
>     default-providers: add default virtual provider for gtk-update-icon-cache
>
>     Use a virtual provider instead of a hard dependency so that if
> gtk+-native is
>     required in some configuration, this provider can be changed and then
>     gtk+-native and gtk-update-icon-cache-native won't be both built
> and conflict in
>     the sysroot.
>
> Presumably some application you've got is explicitly depending on
> gtk+-native, probably for the icon cache handling.  It should drop
> that build dependency and use the class instead.
>
> Your fix "works" but will cause file overwrite warnings in sysroot
> when you actually do want a gtk+-native, for example if you do want to
> build a native gtk+ application or some reason.
>
> Ross
Why do we need two providers which need pinning doing exactly the same?

Andreas