Re: [poky] Suggestion on custom Package group implementation.

Re: [poky] Suggestion on custom Package group implementation.

[Richard Purdie]

On Fri, 2022-06-03 at 23:02 -0700, Rahul Chauhan wrote:
> Hi Team 
> 
> I need your suggestion on below implementation.
> 
> packagegroup-protocol-base.bb
> ===================================
> RDEPENDS_${PN}-protocol-base = "\
> package1 \
> package2 \
> "
> ====================================
>  
> packagegroup-custom-base.bb
> =====================================
> DESCRIPTION = "Custom base package group"
> LICENSE = "MIT"
> LIC_FILES_CHKSUM =
> "file://${COMMON_LICENSE_DIR}/MIT;md5=0aaabfe698e0bcf8506ecda2f7b4f30
> 2"
>  
> PR = "r0"
>  
> PACKAGE_ARCH = "${MACHINE_ARCH}"
>  
> inherit packagegroup
>  
> PROVIDES = "${PACKAGES}"
>  
>  
> PACKAGES += " \
>     ${@bb.utils.contains("DISTRO_FEATURES", "distro-feature-
> protocolA", "${PN}-protocolA", "", d)} \
>     ${@bb.utils.contains("DISTRO_FEATURES", "distro-feature-
> protocolB", "${PN}-protocolB", "", d)} \
>     ....
>     ....
> "
>  
> RDEPENDS_${PN} = "\
>     ${@bb.utils.contains("DISTRO_FEATURES", "distro-feature-
> protocolA", "${PN}-protocolA", "", d)} \
>     ${@bb.utils.contains("DISTRO_FEATURES", "distro-feature-
> protocolB", "${PN}-protocolB", "", d)} \
>     ....
>     ....
> "
>  
> RDEPENDS_${PN}-protocolA = "\
> packagegroup-protocol-base \
> package-3 \
> "
>  
> RDEPENDS_${PN}-protocolB = "\
> packagegroup-protocol-base \
> package-4 \
> "
>  
> .....
> .....
>  
> =====================================
>  
>  
> custom-image.bb
> ======================================
>  
> ....
> ....
>  
> IMAGE_INSTALL_append = " \
>         packagegroup-custom-base \
> "
> ....
> ....
>  
> ========================================
>  
> bitbake custom-image 
>  
>  
> there is some common package which is required for both protocolA and
> ProtocolB.
> So i included packagegroup-protocol-base in both RDEPENDS.
>  
>  
> But suppose if a devce using both protocolA and ProtocolB.
> in that case there will be a duplication of "packagegroup-protocol-
> base" but i am not facing any build issue.
>  
> can anyone please explain me why this behavior?
> Is it problematic during runtime on target ?
> Is there any problem during packaging ?
> Is it correct implementation or any suggestion will helpful for me.

The issue is that you could never build a package feed that could
support both configurations. Bitbake is being "clever" and swapping the
packagegroup recipe and packages between the two configurations behind
the scenes for you.

Ideally you'd not rely on that behaviour but unless you use package
feeds, it probably doesn't show a direct issue to you.

Cheers,

Richard

Re: Suggestion on custom Package group implementation.

[Rahul Chauhan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 409 bytes --]

Hi Richard,

Thanks for your Response.

I verified that all the ipk are generated for all below packagegroups
packagegroup-protocol-base-protocolA
packagegroup-protocol-base-protocolB
packagegroup-custom-base .

So I am confused here, how package feed is affecting.
can you please point us  some more details.

what is the ideal way to handle such kind of case.

Thanks & Regards
Rahul Kumar

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 633 bytes --]