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

Andreas Müller schnitzeltony at gmail.com
Mon Jun 18 20:10:12 UTC 2018


On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 8:55 PM, Mark Hatle <mark.hatle at windriver.com> wrote:
> 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.
I prefer not to apply the patch (Or Khem shall I send a revert?). It
is not a good idea to break builds for distros not following a
recommendation. Anyway the mentioned patch was a cleanup: It is not
worth to break things by a minor cleanup.

Andreas



More information about the Openembedded-devel mailing list