[OE-core] Is a dependency on hostperl-runtime-native actually useful?

[Burton, Ross]

On 31 July 2018 at 02:06, Andre McCurdy <armccurdy at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 3:23 PM, Richard Purdie
> <richard.purdie at linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, 2018-07-30 at 14:44 -0700, Andre McCurdy wrote:
>>> Currently the openssl 1.0 recipe defines a dependency on
>>> hostperl-runtime-native and the openssl 1.1 recipe does not. Both run
>>> "perl ./Configure ..." as part of do_configure().
>>>
>>> Since hostperl-runtime-native is included in ASSUME_PROVIDED, is it
>>> really useful for the openssl 1.0 recipe to list it in DEPENDS?
>>>
>>> ie is the openssl 1.0 recipe being unnecessarily complex or is the
>>> openssl 1.1 recipe being too simplistic?
>>
>> It is useful for things to list their dependencies and we did have an
>> effort to actually list things out so we know ASSUME_PROVIDED is
>> correct. This means we can spot areas we might be able to trim back
>> dependencies (amongst other reasons).
>>
>> With the introduction of HOSTTOOLS, its perhaps less needed than it was
>> but in principle it is still useful to know which things need a given
>> item, particularly where its more unusual. I'd still be interested in
>> trying to cut back HOSTTOOLS a bit more.
>>
>> The 1.1 recipe was pretty heavily cut back, probably too much so based
>> on some of the patches we've been getting...
>
> Thanks. Is there an obvious reason why both recipes shouldn't be using
> perl-native rather than hostperl-runtime-native? Building with
> perl-native seems to work fine.

Because using the host perl means not depending on perl-native, which
should only be used if we need to run a module that we built.

Ross