[oe] [meta-xfce][PATCH] meta-xfce: xfconf: fixup installed-vs-shipped QA issue

[Khem Raj]

On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 9:12 AM Mark Asselstine <
mark.asselstine at windriver.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 12:02 PM Mark Asselstine
> <mark.asselstine at windriver.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 12:00 PM Mark Asselstine
> > <mark.asselstine at windriver.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wednesday, November 7, 2018 11:55:08 AM EST Khem Raj wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 8:40 AM Mark Asselstine
> > > >
> > > > <mark.asselstine at windriver.com> wrote:
> > > > > Since the xfconf uprev, commit 4222cac97678 [xfconf: 4.13.5 ->
> > > > >
> > > > > 4.13.6], we are getting a QA issue:
> > > > >   ERROR: xfconf-4.13.6-r0 do_package: QA Issue: xfconf:
> Files/directories
> > > > >   were installed but not shipped in any package:
> > > > >   /usr/lib64/gio/modules/libxfconfgsettingsbackend.la
> > > > >   Please set FILES such that these items are packaged.
> Alternatively if
> > > > >   they are unneeded, avoid installing them or delete them within
> > > > >   do_install. xfconf: 1 installed and not shipped files.
> > > > >   [installed-vs-shipped]
> > > > >   ERROR: xfconf-4.13.6-r0 do_package: Fatal QA errors found,
> failing task.
> > > > >   ERROR: xfconf-4.13.6-r0 do_package: Function failed: do_package
> > > > >
> > > > > We need to include the .la file in the -dev package to avoid this.
> > > >
> > > > can we just delete it.
> > >
> > > I am fine with that, it is of little use. In the past I have asked
> Mark Hatle
> > > for advice on package vs. delete and I never get a clear answer one
> way or the
> > > other. I am sure if you look at my patch history 50% of the time I
> have some
> > > that delete these and the other 50% I keep them.
> > >
> > > In this case there are already other .la files in the -dev package so
> I just
> > > went along with the keep approach.
> >
> > Sorry, I wasn't clear on what I will do. I will send a V2 and make use
> > of remove-libtool to take care of the cleanup.
> >
>
> Actually, Khem, if we go back to our discussion back in June
>
> http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-devel/2018-June/118896.html
>
> we ended up packaging the .la files. If the distro were to use
> remove-libtool then they would be cleaned up. So based on that I stand
> by my V1.
>
> Thoughts?


Yeah I think as long as packaging works ok in both cases I am fine

>
>
> MarkA
>
> > MarkA
> >
> > >
> > > MarkA
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Mark Asselstine <mark.asselstine at windriver.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >
> > > > >  meta-xfce/recipes-xfce/xfconf/xfconf_4.13.6.bb | 2 ++
> > > > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/meta-xfce/recipes-xfce/xfconf/xfconf_4.13.6.bb
> > > > > b/meta-xfce/recipes-xfce/xfconf/xfconf_4.13.6.bb index
> 191d0fd..2667ff9
> > > > > 100644
> > > > > --- a/meta-xfce/recipes-xfce/xfconf/xfconf_4.13.6.bb
> > > > > +++ b/meta-xfce/recipes-xfce/xfconf/xfconf_4.13.6.bb
> > > > > @@ -14,3 +14,5 @@ SRC_URI[sha256sum] =
> > > > > "d1a3d442dae188b5a7380b5815377e5488578cdafb03ae363e9426e3b0>
> > > > >  FILES_${PN} += "${libdir}/xfce4/xfconf/xfconfd \
> > > > >
> > > > >
> ${libdir}/gio/modules/libxfconfgsettingsbackend.so \
> > > > >
> ${datadir}/dbus-1/services/org.xfce.Xfconf.service"
> > > > >
> > > > > +
> > > > > +FILES_${PN}-dev += "${libdir}/gio/modules/
> libxfconfgsettingsbackend.la"
> > > > > --
> > > > > 2.7.4
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Openembedded-devel mailing list
> > > > > Openembedded-devel at lists.openembedded.org
> > > > > http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Openembedded-devel mailing list
> > > Openembedded-devel at lists.openembedded.org
> > > http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
>