[oe] [meta-oe][PATCH] talloc: remove default packages from the packages list since empty

[Jens Rehsack]

> Am 03.10.2015 um 20:37 schrieb Christopher Larson <clarson at kergoth.com>:
> 
> On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Andrei Kholodnyi <
> andrei.kholodnyi at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> populate_sdk fails with following message:
>> error: talloc-dev-2.1.1-r0 requires talloc = 2.1.1-r0
>> 
>> these packages are empty,remove them from the package list
>> ---
>> meta-oe/recipes-support/talloc/talloc_2.1.1.bb | 5 +----
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/meta-oe/recipes-support/talloc/talloc_2.1.1.bb
>> b/meta-oe/recipes-support/talloc/talloc_2.1.1.bb
>> index 89c390f..0c98bb6 100644
>> --- a/meta-oe/recipes-support/talloc/talloc_2.1.1.bb
>> +++ b/meta-oe/recipes-support/talloc/talloc_2.1.1.bb
>> @@ -20,12 +20,9 @@ EXTRA_OECONF += "--disable-rpath \
>>                  --with-libiconv=${STAGING_DIR_HOST}${prefix}\
>>                 "
>> 
>> -PACKAGES += "libtalloc libtalloc-dbg libtalloc-dev pytalloc pytalloc-dbg
>> pytalloc-dev"
>> +PACKAGES = "libtalloc libtalloc-dbg libtalloc-dev pytalloc pytalloc-dbg
>> pytalloc-dev"
>> 
>> #ALLOW_EMPTY_${PN} = "1"
>> -FILES_${PN} = ""
>> -FILES_${PN}-dev = ""
>> -FILES_${PN}-dbg = ""
>> 
> 
> Question, why does this use libtalloc as the package names rather than the
> default of talloc? In the common case of the debian bbclass inherited,
> they'll get renamed based on the library soname anyway. Also, overriding
> the PACKAGES list isn't ideal, since it means future changes to the default
> value of PACKAGES will not be picked up here. Also, this packaging is worse
> than default, as it doesn't have the -staticdev package.

In current situation you have to touch every recipe depending on
talloc - not only in poky and meta-oe, also in any 3rd party layer.

I agree to the rename, but at a better time (e.g. when jethro has been settled).

Cheers
-- 
Jens Rehsack - rehsack at gmail.com