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

[Andreas Müller]

On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 10:14 PM, Mark Asselstine
<mark.asselstine at windriver.com> wrote:
> 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
>
Would be great if you could do that - thanks in advance

Andreas