On 9/20/21 7:48 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Mon, 2021-09-20 at 13:46 +0100, Richard Purdie via lists.openembedded.org
> wrote:
>> There are several dependencies which recipes have which are not needed
>> at runtime, only at build time. Extend the list of these from bison to
>> include quilt, patch, meson, autoconf, automake and ninja which should
>> reduce the amount of data being included in native sysroots.
>>
>> This speeds up and reduces the sstate needed for image builds for example.
>>
>> If this change breaks recipes, it probably means they're missing an explicit
>> DEPENDS on something in this list which is a bug in the recipe.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
>> ---
>>   meta/conf/layer.conf | 12 +++++++++++-
>>   1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/meta/conf/layer.conf b/meta/conf/layer.conf
>> index 307ad7e2237..b3cc8a249e9 100644
>> --- a/meta/conf/layer.conf
>> +++ b/meta/conf/layer.conf
>> @@ -48,6 +48,7 @@ SIGGEN_EXCLUDERECIPES_ABISAFE += " \
>>   "
>>   
>>   SIGGEN_EXCLUDE_SAFE_RECIPE_DEPS += " \
>> +  *->patch-native \
>>     *->quilt-native \
>>     *->subversion-native \
>>     *->git-native \
>> @@ -90,7 +91,16 @@ SIGGEN_EXCLUDE_SAFE_RECIPE_DEPS += " \
>>   # (e.g. X -> Y -> binutils-cross -> bison-native) no longer meet the
>>   # dependency incidentally. This improves determinism and avoids build
>>   # failures when people switch to external toolchains.
>> -SSTATE_EXCLUDEDEPS_SYSROOT += ".*->bison-native"
>> +SSTATE_EXCLUDEDEPS_SYSROOT += "\
>> +    .*->autoconf-native \
>> +    .*->automake-native \
>> +    .*->bison-native \
>> +    .*->meson-native \
>> +    .*->ninja-native \
>> +    .*->patch-native \
>> +    .*->pkgconfig-native \
>> +    .*->quilt-native \
>> +"
> I've marked this one as an RFC since it caused a fair bit of pain even in OE-
> core due to recipes having pkgconfig class inherits missing.
>
> We do really want to do this and correctly mark up the recipe dependencies, the
> question is whether it is too late for 3.4 or not. We could go for a smaller
> list for now too but I wanted to hear opinions.


It looks like a great change! I'd say it's too late for 3.4 and we 
should do it for 3.5 instead.

>
> Cheers,
>
> Richard
>
>
> 
>