[oe] [meta-xfce][PATCH] xfce4-panel: fix QA issue 'installed-vs-shipped'

[Mark Hatle]

On 6/18/18 1:47 PM, Khem Raj wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 11:09 AM Mark Asselstine
> <mark.asselstine at windriver.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 1:57 PM, Khem Raj <raj.khem at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 10:54 AM Mark Hatle <mark.hatle at windriver.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 6/18/18 12:50 PM, Khem Raj wrote:
>>>>> Hi Mark
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems your distro is not inheriting it globally. Here I have
>>>>> INHERIT_DISTRO ?=  "debian devshell sstate license remove-libtool"
>>>>
>>>> So is remove-libtool a recipe or a distro option?
>>>>
>>>> I'm asking because doing this half-way is causing a lot of confusion.
>>>>
>>>> If it's a distro option, then the recipes should work without it being set.  If
>>>> it's a recipe option, then the recipes that need it should use it.
>>>>
>>>> Right now it doesn't seem to be working with these recipes because they don't
>>>> package the .la files UNLESS it's enabled.  So the fix is either to package them
>>>> (by default) or inherit the remove-libtool.
>>>>
>>>
>>> since we make it as part of meta/conf/distro/defaultsetup.conf
>>> its a default policy,  its perfectly fine for a distro to disregard that
>>> however, then you fall into a non-default case. I am willing to accept
>>> per recipe patches but I would recommend to consider it as a distro
>>> feature for your distro.
>>>
>>
>> Andreas,
>>
>> Can you revert your "various classes recipes: Remove FILES entries for
>> dbg/dev packages" then? If this is a distro feature then these recipes
>> need to build without the QA issue and without the remove-libtool
>> distro feature being set.
> 
> This is in default features so I would not recommend revert, distros
> not using this feature are in best position to fix it, as I said
> before those patches are acceptable.
> 

I'm confused.  If you say it's a default option, and if you DON'T use it, then
you are responsible for fixing this.  I take that as you want patches to fix the
issue.

The revert will return the original code that packages the .la files (if they
exist) and is the 'patch'.

Right now we have a broken situation where it doesn't work, and a ton of
.bbappends would be needed for a custom distro, and these bbappends would make
it difficult to pass a Yocto Project compliance test.

(I don't really care either way if someone includes or doesn't .la files in a
distribution -- just that since it's even an option -- both sides of the option
should work.  I'm also fine with saying OE only tests one side of the option,
but that means patches should be accepted for the other side.)

--Mark