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

[Mark Asselstine]

On Monday, June 18, 2018 4:10:12 PM EDT Andreas Müller wrote:
> 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.

The patch doesn't just cleanup .la but also some .debug files, so I suppose it 
doesn't have to be a full revert. I can put together something which just gets 
things going with a return to including .la files in FILES if people would 
prefer that approach.

MarkA

> 
> Andreas