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

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

[Mark Asselstine]

Since commit 5f31db601408 [xfce4-panel: upgrade 4.12.2 -> 4.13.3] we
are getting a QA Warnings/Erros for 'installed-vs-shipped':

    ERROR: xfce4-panel-4.13.3-r0 do_package: QA Issue: xfce4-panel:
    Files/directories were installed but not shipped in any package:
      /usr/lib64/xfce4/panel/plugins/liblauncher.la
      /usr/lib64/xfce4/panel/plugins/libdirectorymenu.la
      ...

From various OE documents the .la files should not be packaged in
either the main recipe package or the -dev package unless required. So
inherit 'remove-libtool' to have all the .la files cleaned up as they
don't appear to be necessary.

Signed-off-by: Mark Asselstine <mark.asselstine@windriver.com>
---

This error is currently only seen on master-next since the xfce4-panel
upgrade commit is yet to make it into master. As such this fix is only
applicable to master-next.


 meta-xfce/recipes-xfce/xfce4-panel/xfce4-panel_4.13.3.bb | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/meta-xfce/recipes-xfce/xfce4-panel/xfce4-panel_4.13.3.bb b/meta-xfce/recipes-xfce/xfce4-panel/xfce4-panel_4.13.3.bb
index 6625f05..f1b4504 100644
--- a/meta-xfce/recipes-xfce/xfce4-panel/xfce4-panel_4.13.3.bb
+++ b/meta-xfce/recipes-xfce/xfce4-panel/xfce4-panel_4.13.3.bb
@@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ LICENSE = "GPLv2"
 LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://COPYING;md5=26a8bd75d8f8498bdbbe64a27791d4ee"
 DEPENDS = "libxfce4util garcon libxfce4ui xfconf exo gtk+ gtk+3 dbus cairo virtual/libx11 libxml2 libwnck3 vala-native"
 
-inherit xfce gtk-doc gobject-introspection distro_features_check gtk-icon-cache
+inherit xfce gtk-doc gobject-introspection distro_features_check gtk-icon-cache remove-libtool
 
 REQUIRED_DISTRO_FEATURES = "x11"
 
-- 
2.7.4

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

[Andreas Müller]

On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 4:45 PM, Mark Asselstine
<mark.asselstine@windriver.com> wrote:
> Since commit 5f31db601408 [xfce4-panel: upgrade 4.12.2 -> 4.13.3] we
> are getting a QA Warnings/Erros for 'installed-vs-shipped':
>
>     ERROR: xfce4-panel-4.13.3-r0 do_package: QA Issue: xfce4-panel:
>     Files/directories were installed but not shipped in any package:
>       /usr/lib64/xfce4/panel/plugins/liblauncher.la
>       /usr/lib64/xfce4/panel/plugins/libdirectorymenu.la
>       ...
>
> From various OE documents the .la files should not be packaged in
> either the main recipe package or the -dev package unless required. So
> inherit 'remove-libtool' to have all the .la files cleaned up as they
> don't appear to be necessary.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mark Asselstine <mark.asselstine@windriver.com>
> ---
>
> This error is currently only seen on master-next since the xfce4-panel
> upgrade commit is yet to make it into master. As such this fix is only
> applicable to master-next.
I think it was not the upgrade -> 4.13.3 commit but later commit / same series

various classes recipes: Remove FILES entries for dbg/dev packages
...
--- a/meta-xfce/classes/xfce.bbclass
+++ b/meta-xfce/classes/xfce.bbclass
@@ -12,11 +12,3 @@ DEPENDS += "intltool-native"

 FILES_${PN} += "${datadir}/icons/* ${datadir}/applications/*
${libdir}/xfce4/modules/*.so*"
 FILES_${PN}-doc += "${datadir}/xfce4/doc"
-
-FILES_${PN}-dev += "${libdir}/xfce4/*/*.la"
-FILES_${PN}-dev += "${libdir}/xfce4/*/*/*.la"
...

My builds have remove-libtool enabled so I did not see this QA warning/error.

Isn't remove-libtool enabled by default since pyro/2.3 - so that this
patch is obsolete (and all the other same kind coming later)?

Andreas

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

[Mark Asselstine]

On Monday, June 18, 2018 12:51:47 PM EDT Andreas Müller wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 4:45 PM, Mark Asselstine
> 
> <mark.asselstine@windriver.com> wrote:
> > Since commit 5f31db601408 [xfce4-panel: upgrade 4.12.2 -> 4.13.3] we
> > 
> > are getting a QA Warnings/Erros for 'installed-vs-shipped':
> >     ERROR: xfce4-panel-4.13.3-r0 do_package: QA Issue: xfce4-panel:
> >     
> >     Files/directories were installed but not shipped in any package:
> >       /usr/lib64/xfce4/panel/plugins/liblauncher.la
> >       /usr/lib64/xfce4/panel/plugins/libdirectorymenu.la
> >       ...
> > 
> > From various OE documents the .la files should not be packaged in
> > either the main recipe package or the -dev package unless required. So
> > inherit 'remove-libtool' to have all the .la files cleaned up as they
> > don't appear to be necessary.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Mark Asselstine <mark.asselstine@windriver.com>
> > ---
> > 
> > This error is currently only seen on master-next since the xfce4-panel
> > upgrade commit is yet to make it into master. As such this fix is only
> > applicable to master-next.
> 
> I think it was not the upgrade -> 4.13.3 commit but later commit / same
> series
> 

Sure, I can update the commit log and send a V2 but first let's sort out the 
remainder.

> various classes recipes: Remove FILES entries for dbg/dev packages
> ...
> --- a/meta-xfce/classes/xfce.bbclass
> +++ b/meta-xfce/classes/xfce.bbclass
> @@ -12,11 +12,3 @@ DEPENDS += "intltool-native"
> 
>  FILES_${PN} += "${datadir}/icons/* ${datadir}/applications/*
> ${libdir}/xfce4/modules/*.so*"
>  FILES_${PN}-doc += "${datadir}/xfce4/doc"
> -
> -FILES_${PN}-dev += "${libdir}/xfce4/*/*.la"
> -FILES_${PN}-dev += "${libdir}/xfce4/*/*/*.la"
> ...
> 
> My builds have remove-libtool enabled so I did not see this QA
> warning/error.
> 
> Isn't remove-libtool enabled by default since pyro/2.3 - so that this
> patch is obsolete (and all the other same kind coming later)?

The documentation still indicates:
---
<note>
            The <filename>remove-libtool</filename> class is not enabled by
            default.
</note>
---

So as far as I know this still needs to be handled recipe to recipe by 
inheriting the remove-libtool class in the affected recipes. I have done 
builds without manipulating the generated local.conf which seem to confirm 
this but I could be wrong. Add RP who might have some guidance.

MarkA

> 
> Andreas

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

[Mark Asselstine]

On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 1:07 PM, Mark Asselstine
<mark.asselstine@windriver.com> wrote:
> On Monday, June 18, 2018 12:51:47 PM EDT Andreas Müller wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 4:45 PM, Mark Asselstine
>>
>> <mark.asselstine@windriver.com> wrote:
>> > Since commit 5f31db601408 [xfce4-panel: upgrade 4.12.2 -> 4.13.3] we
>> >
>> > are getting a QA Warnings/Erros for 'installed-vs-shipped':
>> >     ERROR: xfce4-panel-4.13.3-r0 do_package: QA Issue: xfce4-panel:
>> >
>> >     Files/directories were installed but not shipped in any package:
>> >       /usr/lib64/xfce4/panel/plugins/liblauncher.la
>> >       /usr/lib64/xfce4/panel/plugins/libdirectorymenu.la
>> >       ...
>> >
>> > From various OE documents the .la files should not be packaged in
>> > either the main recipe package or the -dev package unless required. So
>> > inherit 'remove-libtool' to have all the .la files cleaned up as they
>> > don't appear to be necessary.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Mark Asselstine <mark.asselstine@windriver.com>
>> > ---
>> >
>> > This error is currently only seen on master-next since the xfce4-panel
>> > upgrade commit is yet to make it into master. As such this fix is only
>> > applicable to master-next.
>>
>> I think it was not the upgrade -> 4.13.3 commit but later commit / same
>> series
>>
>
> Sure, I can update the commit log and send a V2 but first let's sort out the
> remainder.
>
>> various classes recipes: Remove FILES entries for dbg/dev packages
>> ...
>> --- a/meta-xfce/classes/xfce.bbclass
>> +++ b/meta-xfce/classes/xfce.bbclass
>> @@ -12,11 +12,3 @@ DEPENDS += "intltool-native"
>>
>>  FILES_${PN} += "${datadir}/icons/* ${datadir}/applications/*
>> ${libdir}/xfce4/modules/*.so*"
>>  FILES_${PN}-doc += "${datadir}/xfce4/doc"
>> -
>> -FILES_${PN}-dev += "${libdir}/xfce4/*/*.la"
>> -FILES_${PN}-dev += "${libdir}/xfce4/*/*/*.la"
>> ...
>>
>> My builds have remove-libtool enabled so I did not see this QA
>> warning/error.
>>
>> Isn't remove-libtool enabled by default since pyro/2.3 - so that this
>> patch is obsolete (and all the other same kind coming later)?
>
> The documentation still indicates:
> ---
> <note>
>             The <filename>remove-libtool</filename> class is not enabled by
>             default.
> </note>
> ---
>
> So as far as I know this still needs to be handled recipe to recipe by
> inheriting the remove-libtool class in the affected recipes. I have done
> builds without manipulating the generated local.conf which seem to confirm
> this but I could be wrong. Add RP who might have some guidance.
>
> MarkA

Just hit another one
---
ERROR: gtk-xfce-engine-3.2.0-r0 do_package: QA Issue: gtk-xfce-engine:
Files/directories were installed but not shipped in any package:
 /usr/lib64/gtk-3.0/3.0.0/theming-engines/libxfce.la
 /usr/lib64/gtk-2.0/2.10.0/engines/libxfce.la
Please set FILES such that these items are packaged. Alternatively if
they are unneeded, avoid installing them or delete them within
do_install.
---
Andreas, seeing as you didn't hit the 'installed-vs-shipped' QA issue
with thunar recipe I suspect the reason you didn't see this is not
related to remove-libtool but rather that you have disabled the
'installed-vs-shipped' QA check itself.

MarkA


>
>>
>> Andreas
>
>
>
>
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel

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

[Mark Asselstine]

On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 1:15 PM, Mark Asselstine
<mark.asselstine@windriver.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 1:07 PM, Mark Asselstine
> <mark.asselstine@windriver.com> wrote:
>> On Monday, June 18, 2018 12:51:47 PM EDT Andreas Müller wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 4:45 PM, Mark Asselstine
>>>
>>> <mark.asselstine@windriver.com> wrote:
>>> > Since commit 5f31db601408 [xfce4-panel: upgrade 4.12.2 -> 4.13.3] we
>>> >
>>> > are getting a QA Warnings/Erros for 'installed-vs-shipped':
>>> >     ERROR: xfce4-panel-4.13.3-r0 do_package: QA Issue: xfce4-panel:
>>> >
>>> >     Files/directories were installed but not shipped in any package:
>>> >       /usr/lib64/xfce4/panel/plugins/liblauncher.la
>>> >       /usr/lib64/xfce4/panel/plugins/libdirectorymenu.la
>>> >       ...
>>> >
>>> > From various OE documents the .la files should not be packaged in
>>> > either the main recipe package or the -dev package unless required. So
>>> > inherit 'remove-libtool' to have all the .la files cleaned up as they
>>> > don't appear to be necessary.
>>> >
>>> > Signed-off-by: Mark Asselstine <mark.asselstine@windriver.com>
>>> > ---
>>> >
>>> > This error is currently only seen on master-next since the xfce4-panel
>>> > upgrade commit is yet to make it into master. As such this fix is only
>>> > applicable to master-next.
>>>
>>> I think it was not the upgrade -> 4.13.3 commit but later commit / same
>>> series
>>>
>>
>> Sure, I can update the commit log and send a V2 but first let's sort out the
>> remainder.
>>
>>> various classes recipes: Remove FILES entries for dbg/dev packages
>>> ...
>>> --- a/meta-xfce/classes/xfce.bbclass
>>> +++ b/meta-xfce/classes/xfce.bbclass
>>> @@ -12,11 +12,3 @@ DEPENDS += "intltool-native"
>>>
>>>  FILES_${PN} += "${datadir}/icons/* ${datadir}/applications/*
>>> ${libdir}/xfce4/modules/*.so*"
>>>  FILES_${PN}-doc += "${datadir}/xfce4/doc"
>>> -
>>> -FILES_${PN}-dev += "${libdir}/xfce4/*/*.la"
>>> -FILES_${PN}-dev += "${libdir}/xfce4/*/*/*.la"
>>> ...
>>>
>>> My builds have remove-libtool enabled so I did not see this QA
>>> warning/error.
>>>
>>> Isn't remove-libtool enabled by default since pyro/2.3 - so that this
>>> patch is obsolete (and all the other same kind coming later)?
>>
>> The documentation still indicates:
>> ---
>> <note>
>>             The <filename>remove-libtool</filename> class is not enabled by
>>             default.
>> </note>
>> ---
>>
>> So as far as I know this still needs to be handled recipe to recipe by
>> inheriting the remove-libtool class in the affected recipes. I have done
>> builds without manipulating the generated local.conf which seem to confirm
>> this but I could be wrong. Add RP who might have some guidance.
>>
>> MarkA
>
> Just hit another one
> ---
> ERROR: gtk-xfce-engine-3.2.0-r0 do_package: QA Issue: gtk-xfce-engine:
> Files/directories were installed but not shipped in any package:
>  /usr/lib64/gtk-3.0/3.0.0/theming-engines/libxfce.la
>  /usr/lib64/gtk-2.0/2.10.0/engines/libxfce.la
> Please set FILES such that these items are packaged. Alternatively if
> they are unneeded, avoid installing them or delete them within
> do_install.
> ---
> Andreas, seeing as you didn't hit the 'installed-vs-shipped' QA issue
> with thunar recipe I suspect the reason you didn't see this is not
> related to remove-libtool but rather that you have disabled the
> 'installed-vs-shipped' QA check itself.

And xfce4-session now too. I found a reference from a few years back
related to remove-libtool use on a per recipe basis
(http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-devel/2016-March/106323.html),
so definitely some concerns being expressed using this on a per recipe
basis. On the other hand this just seems like we are setting traps for
ourselves. If we compare to another common class, rm_work, I can
pretty much toggle rm_work on or off and recipes are expected to just
work in either case. This is definitely not the case with
remove-libtool which gives the impression of being optional but if not
enabled and I do basic QA checks I will get failures, as is evident in
my current build.

MarkA

>
> MarkA
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> Andreas
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> _______________________________________________
>> Openembedded-devel mailing list
>> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
>> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel

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

[Khem Raj]

Hi Mark

It seems your distro is not inheriting it globally. Here I have
INHERIT_DISTRO ?=  "debian devshell sstate license remove-libtool"
On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 10:49 AM Mark Asselstine
<mark.asselstine@windriver.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 1:15 PM, Mark Asselstine
> <mark.asselstine@windriver.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 1:07 PM, Mark Asselstine
> > <mark.asselstine@windriver.com> wrote:
> >> On Monday, June 18, 2018 12:51:47 PM EDT Andreas Müller wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 4:45 PM, Mark Asselstine
> >>>
> >>> <mark.asselstine@windriver.com> wrote:
> >>> > Since commit 5f31db601408 [xfce4-panel: upgrade 4.12.2 -> 4.13.3] we
> >>> >
> >>> > are getting a QA Warnings/Erros for 'installed-vs-shipped':
> >>> >     ERROR: xfce4-panel-4.13.3-r0 do_package: QA Issue: xfce4-panel:
> >>> >
> >>> >     Files/directories were installed but not shipped in any package:
> >>> >       /usr/lib64/xfce4/panel/plugins/liblauncher.la
> >>> >       /usr/lib64/xfce4/panel/plugins/libdirectorymenu.la
> >>> >       ...
> >>> >
> >>> > From various OE documents the .la files should not be packaged in
> >>> > either the main recipe package or the -dev package unless required. So
> >>> > inherit 'remove-libtool' to have all the .la files cleaned up as they
> >>> > don't appear to be necessary.
> >>> >
> >>> > Signed-off-by: Mark Asselstine <mark.asselstine@windriver.com>
> >>> > ---
> >>> >
> >>> > This error is currently only seen on master-next since the xfce4-panel
> >>> > upgrade commit is yet to make it into master. As such this fix is only
> >>> > applicable to master-next.
> >>>
> >>> I think it was not the upgrade -> 4.13.3 commit but later commit / same
> >>> series
> >>>
> >>
> >> Sure, I can update the commit log and send a V2 but first let's sort out the
> >> remainder.
> >>
> >>> various classes recipes: Remove FILES entries for dbg/dev packages
> >>> ...
> >>> --- a/meta-xfce/classes/xfce.bbclass
> >>> +++ b/meta-xfce/classes/xfce.bbclass
> >>> @@ -12,11 +12,3 @@ DEPENDS += "intltool-native"
> >>>
> >>>  FILES_${PN} += "${datadir}/icons/* ${datadir}/applications/*
> >>> ${libdir}/xfce4/modules/*.so*"
> >>>  FILES_${PN}-doc += "${datadir}/xfce4/doc"
> >>> -
> >>> -FILES_${PN}-dev += "${libdir}/xfce4/*/*.la"
> >>> -FILES_${PN}-dev += "${libdir}/xfce4/*/*/*.la"
> >>> ...
> >>>
> >>> My builds have remove-libtool enabled so I did not see this QA
> >>> warning/error.
> >>>
> >>> Isn't remove-libtool enabled by default since pyro/2.3 - so that this
> >>> patch is obsolete (and all the other same kind coming later)?
> >>
> >> The documentation still indicates:
> >> ---
> >> <note>
> >>             The <filename>remove-libtool</filename> class is not enabled by
> >>             default.
> >> </note>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> So as far as I know this still needs to be handled recipe to recipe by
> >> inheriting the remove-libtool class in the affected recipes. I have done
> >> builds without manipulating the generated local.conf which seem to confirm
> >> this but I could be wrong. Add RP who might have some guidance.
> >>
> >> MarkA
> >
> > Just hit another one
> > ---
> > ERROR: gtk-xfce-engine-3.2.0-r0 do_package: QA Issue: gtk-xfce-engine:
> > Files/directories were installed but not shipped in any package:
> >  /usr/lib64/gtk-3.0/3.0.0/theming-engines/libxfce.la
> >  /usr/lib64/gtk-2.0/2.10.0/engines/libxfce.la
> > Please set FILES such that these items are packaged. Alternatively if
> > they are unneeded, avoid installing them or delete them within
> > do_install.
> > ---
> > Andreas, seeing as you didn't hit the 'installed-vs-shipped' QA issue
> > with thunar recipe I suspect the reason you didn't see this is not
> > related to remove-libtool but rather that you have disabled the
> > 'installed-vs-shipped' QA check itself.
>
> And xfce4-session now too. I found a reference from a few years back
> related to remove-libtool use on a per recipe basis
> (http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-devel/2016-March/106323.html),
> so definitely some concerns being expressed using this on a per recipe
> basis. On the other hand this just seems like we are setting traps for
> ourselves. If we compare to another common class, rm_work, I can
> pretty much toggle rm_work on or off and recipes are expected to just
> work in either case. This is definitely not the case with
> remove-libtool which gives the impression of being optional but if not
> enabled and I do basic QA checks I will get failures, as is evident in
> my current build.
>
> MarkA
>
> >
> > MarkA
> >
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Andreas
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> >> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> >> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel

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

[Mark Hatle]

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.

--Mark

> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 10:49 AM Mark Asselstine
> <mark.asselstine@windriver.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 1:15 PM, Mark Asselstine
>> <mark.asselstine@windriver.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 1:07 PM, Mark Asselstine
>>> <mark.asselstine@windriver.com> wrote:
>>>> On Monday, June 18, 2018 12:51:47 PM EDT Andreas Müller wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 4:45 PM, Mark Asselstine
>>>>>
>>>>> <mark.asselstine@windriver.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Since commit 5f31db601408 [xfce4-panel: upgrade 4.12.2 -> 4.13.3] we
>>>>>>
>>>>>> are getting a QA Warnings/Erros for 'installed-vs-shipped':
>>>>>>     ERROR: xfce4-panel-4.13.3-r0 do_package: QA Issue: xfce4-panel:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     Files/directories were installed but not shipped in any package:
>>>>>>       /usr/lib64/xfce4/panel/plugins/liblauncher.la
>>>>>>       /usr/lib64/xfce4/panel/plugins/libdirectorymenu.la
>>>>>>       ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From various OE documents the .la files should not be packaged in
>>>>>> either the main recipe package or the -dev package unless required. So
>>>>>> inherit 'remove-libtool' to have all the .la files cleaned up as they
>>>>>> don't appear to be necessary.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Mark Asselstine <mark.asselstine@windriver.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This error is currently only seen on master-next since the xfce4-panel
>>>>>> upgrade commit is yet to make it into master. As such this fix is only
>>>>>> applicable to master-next.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it was not the upgrade -> 4.13.3 commit but later commit / same
>>>>> series
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sure, I can update the commit log and send a V2 but first let's sort out the
>>>> remainder.
>>>>
>>>>> various classes recipes: Remove FILES entries for dbg/dev packages
>>>>> ...
>>>>> --- a/meta-xfce/classes/xfce.bbclass
>>>>> +++ b/meta-xfce/classes/xfce.bbclass
>>>>> @@ -12,11 +12,3 @@ DEPENDS += "intltool-native"
>>>>>
>>>>>  FILES_${PN} += "${datadir}/icons/* ${datadir}/applications/*
>>>>> ${libdir}/xfce4/modules/*.so*"
>>>>>  FILES_${PN}-doc += "${datadir}/xfce4/doc"
>>>>> -
>>>>> -FILES_${PN}-dev += "${libdir}/xfce4/*/*.la"
>>>>> -FILES_${PN}-dev += "${libdir}/xfce4/*/*/*.la"
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>> My builds have remove-libtool enabled so I did not see this QA
>>>>> warning/error.
>>>>>
>>>>> Isn't remove-libtool enabled by default since pyro/2.3 - so that this
>>>>> patch is obsolete (and all the other same kind coming later)?
>>>>
>>>> The documentation still indicates:
>>>> ---
>>>> <note>
>>>>             The <filename>remove-libtool</filename> class is not enabled by
>>>>             default.
>>>> </note>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> So as far as I know this still needs to be handled recipe to recipe by
>>>> inheriting the remove-libtool class in the affected recipes. I have done
>>>> builds without manipulating the generated local.conf which seem to confirm
>>>> this but I could be wrong. Add RP who might have some guidance.
>>>>
>>>> MarkA
>>>
>>> Just hit another one
>>> ---
>>> ERROR: gtk-xfce-engine-3.2.0-r0 do_package: QA Issue: gtk-xfce-engine:
>>> Files/directories were installed but not shipped in any package:
>>>  /usr/lib64/gtk-3.0/3.0.0/theming-engines/libxfce.la
>>>  /usr/lib64/gtk-2.0/2.10.0/engines/libxfce.la
>>> Please set FILES such that these items are packaged. Alternatively if
>>> they are unneeded, avoid installing them or delete them within
>>> do_install.
>>> ---
>>> Andreas, seeing as you didn't hit the 'installed-vs-shipped' QA issue
>>> with thunar recipe I suspect the reason you didn't see this is not
>>> related to remove-libtool but rather that you have disabled the
>>> 'installed-vs-shipped' QA check itself.
>>
>> And xfce4-session now too. I found a reference from a few years back
>> related to remove-libtool use on a per recipe basis
>> (http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-devel/2016-March/106323.html),
>> so definitely some concerns being expressed using this on a per recipe
>> basis. On the other hand this just seems like we are setting traps for
>> ourselves. If we compare to another common class, rm_work, I can
>> pretty much toggle rm_work on or off and recipes are expected to just
>> work in either case. This is definitely not the case with
>> remove-libtool which gives the impression of being optional but if not
>> enabled and I do basic QA checks I will get failures, as is evident in
>> my current build.
>>
>> MarkA
>>
>>>
>>> MarkA
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Andreas
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Openembedded-devel mailing list
>>>> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
>>>> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
>> --
>> _______________________________________________
>> Openembedded-devel mailing list
>> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
>> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel

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

[Khem Raj]

On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 10:54 AM Mark Hatle <mark.hatle@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.

> --Mark
>
> > On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 10:49 AM Mark Asselstine
> > <mark.asselstine@windriver.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 1:15 PM, Mark Asselstine
> >> <mark.asselstine@windriver.com> wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 1:07 PM, Mark Asselstine
> >>> <mark.asselstine@windriver.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Monday, June 18, 2018 12:51:47 PM EDT Andreas Müller wrote:
> >>>>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 4:45 PM, Mark Asselstine
> >>>>>
> >>>>> <mark.asselstine@windriver.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> Since commit 5f31db601408 [xfce4-panel: upgrade 4.12.2 -> 4.13.3] we
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> are getting a QA Warnings/Erros for 'installed-vs-shipped':
> >>>>>>     ERROR: xfce4-panel-4.13.3-r0 do_package: QA Issue: xfce4-panel:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>     Files/directories were installed but not shipped in any package:
> >>>>>>       /usr/lib64/xfce4/panel/plugins/liblauncher.la
> >>>>>>       /usr/lib64/xfce4/panel/plugins/libdirectorymenu.la
> >>>>>>       ...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> From various OE documents the .la files should not be packaged in
> >>>>>> either the main recipe package or the -dev package unless required. So
> >>>>>> inherit 'remove-libtool' to have all the .la files cleaned up as they
> >>>>>> don't appear to be necessary.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Mark Asselstine <mark.asselstine@windriver.com>
> >>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This error is currently only seen on master-next since the xfce4-panel
> >>>>>> upgrade commit is yet to make it into master. As such this fix is only
> >>>>>> applicable to master-next.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I think it was not the upgrade -> 4.13.3 commit but later commit / same
> >>>>> series
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Sure, I can update the commit log and send a V2 but first let's sort out the
> >>>> remainder.
> >>>>
> >>>>> various classes recipes: Remove FILES entries for dbg/dev packages
> >>>>> ...
> >>>>> --- a/meta-xfce/classes/xfce.bbclass
> >>>>> +++ b/meta-xfce/classes/xfce.bbclass
> >>>>> @@ -12,11 +12,3 @@ DEPENDS += "intltool-native"
> >>>>>
> >>>>>  FILES_${PN} += "${datadir}/icons/* ${datadir}/applications/*
> >>>>> ${libdir}/xfce4/modules/*.so*"
> >>>>>  FILES_${PN}-doc += "${datadir}/xfce4/doc"
> >>>>> -
> >>>>> -FILES_${PN}-dev += "${libdir}/xfce4/*/*.la"
> >>>>> -FILES_${PN}-dev += "${libdir}/xfce4/*/*/*.la"
> >>>>> ...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> My builds have remove-libtool enabled so I did not see this QA
> >>>>> warning/error.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Isn't remove-libtool enabled by default since pyro/2.3 - so that this
> >>>>> patch is obsolete (and all the other same kind coming later)?
> >>>>
> >>>> The documentation still indicates:
> >>>> ---
> >>>> <note>
> >>>>             The <filename>remove-libtool</filename> class is not enabled by
> >>>>             default.
> >>>> </note>
> >>>> ---
> >>>>
> >>>> So as far as I know this still needs to be handled recipe to recipe by
> >>>> inheriting the remove-libtool class in the affected recipes. I have done
> >>>> builds without manipulating the generated local.conf which seem to confirm
> >>>> this but I could be wrong. Add RP who might have some guidance.
> >>>>
> >>>> MarkA
> >>>
> >>> Just hit another one
> >>> ---
> >>> ERROR: gtk-xfce-engine-3.2.0-r0 do_package: QA Issue: gtk-xfce-engine:
> >>> Files/directories were installed but not shipped in any package:
> >>>  /usr/lib64/gtk-3.0/3.0.0/theming-engines/libxfce.la
> >>>  /usr/lib64/gtk-2.0/2.10.0/engines/libxfce.la
> >>> Please set FILES such that these items are packaged. Alternatively if
> >>> they are unneeded, avoid installing them or delete them within
> >>> do_install.
> >>> ---
> >>> Andreas, seeing as you didn't hit the 'installed-vs-shipped' QA issue
> >>> with thunar recipe I suspect the reason you didn't see this is not
> >>> related to remove-libtool but rather that you have disabled the
> >>> 'installed-vs-shipped' QA check itself.
> >>
> >> And xfce4-session now too. I found a reference from a few years back
> >> related to remove-libtool use on a per recipe basis
> >> (http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-devel/2016-March/106323.html),
> >> so definitely some concerns being expressed using this on a per recipe
> >> basis. On the other hand this just seems like we are setting traps for
> >> ourselves. If we compare to another common class, rm_work, I can
> >> pretty much toggle rm_work on or off and recipes are expected to just
> >> work in either case. This is definitely not the case with
> >> remove-libtool which gives the impression of being optional but if not
> >> enabled and I do basic QA checks I will get failures, as is evident in
> >> my current build.
> >>
> >> MarkA
> >>
> >>>
> >>> MarkA
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Andreas
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> >>>> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> >>>> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
> >> --
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> >> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> >> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
>

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

[Mark Asselstine]

On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 1:57 PM, Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 10:54 AM Mark Hatle <mark.hatle@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.

MarkA

>> --Mark
>>
>> > On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 10:49 AM Mark Asselstine
>> > <mark.asselstine@windriver.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 1:15 PM, Mark Asselstine
>> >> <mark.asselstine@windriver.com> wrote:
>> >>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 1:07 PM, Mark Asselstine
>> >>> <mark.asselstine@windriver.com> wrote:
>> >>>> On Monday, June 18, 2018 12:51:47 PM EDT Andreas Müller wrote:
>> >>>>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 4:45 PM, Mark Asselstine
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> <mark.asselstine@windriver.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>> Since commit 5f31db601408 [xfce4-panel: upgrade 4.12.2 -> 4.13.3] we
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> are getting a QA Warnings/Erros for 'installed-vs-shipped':
>> >>>>>>     ERROR: xfce4-panel-4.13.3-r0 do_package: QA Issue: xfce4-panel:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>     Files/directories were installed but not shipped in any package:
>> >>>>>>       /usr/lib64/xfce4/panel/plugins/liblauncher.la
>> >>>>>>       /usr/lib64/xfce4/panel/plugins/libdirectorymenu.la
>> >>>>>>       ...
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> From various OE documents the .la files should not be packaged in
>> >>>>>> either the main recipe package or the -dev package unless required. So
>> >>>>>> inherit 'remove-libtool' to have all the .la files cleaned up as they
>> >>>>>> don't appear to be necessary.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Mark Asselstine <mark.asselstine@windriver.com>
>> >>>>>> ---
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> This error is currently only seen on master-next since the xfce4-panel
>> >>>>>> upgrade commit is yet to make it into master. As such this fix is only
>> >>>>>> applicable to master-next.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I think it was not the upgrade -> 4.13.3 commit but later commit / same
>> >>>>> series
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Sure, I can update the commit log and send a V2 but first let's sort out the
>> >>>> remainder.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> various classes recipes: Remove FILES entries for dbg/dev packages
>> >>>>> ...
>> >>>>> --- a/meta-xfce/classes/xfce.bbclass
>> >>>>> +++ b/meta-xfce/classes/xfce.bbclass
>> >>>>> @@ -12,11 +12,3 @@ DEPENDS += "intltool-native"
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>  FILES_${PN} += "${datadir}/icons/* ${datadir}/applications/*
>> >>>>> ${libdir}/xfce4/modules/*.so*"
>> >>>>>  FILES_${PN}-doc += "${datadir}/xfce4/doc"
>> >>>>> -
>> >>>>> -FILES_${PN}-dev += "${libdir}/xfce4/*/*.la"
>> >>>>> -FILES_${PN}-dev += "${libdir}/xfce4/*/*/*.la"
>> >>>>> ...
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> My builds have remove-libtool enabled so I did not see this QA
>> >>>>> warning/error.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Isn't remove-libtool enabled by default since pyro/2.3 - so that this
>> >>>>> patch is obsolete (and all the other same kind coming later)?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The documentation still indicates:
>> >>>> ---
>> >>>> <note>
>> >>>>             The <filename>remove-libtool</filename> class is not enabled by
>> >>>>             default.
>> >>>> </note>
>> >>>> ---
>> >>>>
>> >>>> So as far as I know this still needs to be handled recipe to recipe by
>> >>>> inheriting the remove-libtool class in the affected recipes. I have done
>> >>>> builds without manipulating the generated local.conf which seem to confirm
>> >>>> this but I could be wrong. Add RP who might have some guidance.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> MarkA
>> >>>
>> >>> Just hit another one
>> >>> ---
>> >>> ERROR: gtk-xfce-engine-3.2.0-r0 do_package: QA Issue: gtk-xfce-engine:
>> >>> Files/directories were installed but not shipped in any package:
>> >>>  /usr/lib64/gtk-3.0/3.0.0/theming-engines/libxfce.la
>> >>>  /usr/lib64/gtk-2.0/2.10.0/engines/libxfce.la
>> >>> Please set FILES such that these items are packaged. Alternatively if
>> >>> they are unneeded, avoid installing them or delete them within
>> >>> do_install.
>> >>> ---
>> >>> Andreas, seeing as you didn't hit the 'installed-vs-shipped' QA issue
>> >>> with thunar recipe I suspect the reason you didn't see this is not
>> >>> related to remove-libtool but rather that you have disabled the
>> >>> 'installed-vs-shipped' QA check itself.
>> >>
>> >> And xfce4-session now too. I found a reference from a few years back
>> >> related to remove-libtool use on a per recipe basis
>> >> (http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-devel/2016-March/106323.html),
>> >> so definitely some concerns being expressed using this on a per recipe
>> >> basis. On the other hand this just seems like we are setting traps for
>> >> ourselves. If we compare to another common class, rm_work, I can
>> >> pretty much toggle rm_work on or off and recipes are expected to just
>> >> work in either case. This is definitely not the case with
>> >> remove-libtool which gives the impression of being optional but if not
>> >> enabled and I do basic QA checks I will get failures, as is evident in
>> >> my current build.
>> >>
>> >> MarkA
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> MarkA
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Andreas
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> --
>> >>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>> Openembedded-devel mailing list
>> >>>> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
>> >>>> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
>> >> --
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Openembedded-devel mailing list
>> >> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
>> >> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
>>
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel

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

[Khem Raj]

On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 11:09 AM Mark Asselstine
<mark.asselstine@windriver.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 1:57 PM, Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 10:54 AM Mark Hatle <mark.hatle@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.

This is in default features so I would not recommend revert, distros
not using this feature are in best position to fix it, as I said
before those patches are acceptable.

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

[Mark Hatle]

On 6/18/18 1:47 PM, Khem Raj wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 11:09 AM Mark Asselstine
> <mark.asselstine@windriver.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 1:57 PM, Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 10:54 AM Mark Hatle <mark.hatle@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.
> 
> This is in default features so I would not recommend revert, distros
> not using this feature are in best position to fix it, as I said
> before those patches are acceptable.
> 

I'm confused.  If you say it's a default option, and if you DON'T use it, then
you are responsible for fixing this.  I take that as you want patches to fix the
issue.

The revert will return the original code that packages the .la files (if they
exist) and is the 'patch'.

Right now we have a broken situation where it doesn't work, and a ton of
.bbappends would be needed for a custom distro, and these bbappends would make
it difficult to pass a Yocto Project compliance test.

(I don't really care either way if someone includes or doesn't .la files in a
distribution -- just that since it's even an option -- both sides of the option
should work.  I'm also fine with saying OE only tests one side of the option,
but that means patches should be accepted for the other side.)

--Mark

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

[Andreas Müller]

On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 8:55 PM, Mark Hatle <mark.hatle@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@windriver.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 1:57 PM, Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 10:54 AM Mark Hatle <mark.hatle@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.

Andreas

Re: [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@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@windriver.com> wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 1:57 PM, Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 10:54 AM Mark Hatle <mark.hatle@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

Re: [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@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@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@windriver.com> wrote:
>> >>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 1:57 PM, Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 10:54 AM Mark Hatle <mark.hatle@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

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

[Khem Raj]

Hi Mark

On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 11:55 AM Mark Hatle <mark.hatle@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@windriver.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 1:57 PM, Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 10:54 AM Mark Hatle <mark.hatle@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.
> >
> > This is in default features so I would not recommend revert, distros
> > not using this feature are in best position to fix it, as I said
> > before those patches are acceptable.
> >
>
> I'm confused.  If you say it's a default option, and if you DON'T use it, then
> you are responsible for fixing this.  I take that as you want patches to fix the
> issue.

I want to encourage folks to use the default distro policy as much as possible.

>
> The revert will return the original code that packages the .la files (if they
> exist) and is the 'patch'.
>
> Right now we have a broken situation where it doesn't work, and a ton of
> .bbappends would be needed for a custom distro, and these bbappends would make
> it difficult to pass a Yocto Project compliance test.
>

I understand that, thats where I said, patches are acceptable to fix
the fallouts for
custom distros but we should not block.

> (I don't really care either way if someone includes or doesn't .la files in a
> distribution -- just that since it's even an option -- both sides of the option
> should work.  I'm also fine with saying OE only tests one side of the option,
> but that means patches should be accepted for the other side.)
>
> --Mark

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

[Richard Purdie]

On Mon, 2018-06-18 at 13:07 -0400, Mark Asselstine wrote:
> On Monday, June 18, 2018 12:51:47 PM EDT Andreas Müller wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 4:45 PM, Mark Asselstine
> > My builds have remove-libtool enabled so I did not see this QA
> > warning/error.
> > 
> > Isn't remove-libtool enabled by default since pyro/2.3 - so that
> > this
> > patch is obsolete (and all the other same kind coming later)?
> 
> The documentation still indicates:
> ---
> <note>
>             The <filename>remove-libtool</filename> class is not
> enabled by
>             default.
> </note>
> ---
> 
> So as far as I know this still needs to be handled recipe to recipe
> by inheriting the remove-libtool class in the affected recipes. I
> have done  builds without manipulating the generated local.conf which
> seem to confirm  this but I could be wrong. Add RP who might have
> some guidance.

Removing the libtool files became the project default a while ago (Jan
2017):

meta/conf/distro/defaultsetup.conf:INHERIT_DISTRO ?= "debian devshell sstate license remove-libtool"

so I suspect you're in the minority not using that now.

http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky/commit/meta/conf/distro/defaultsetup.conf?id=3e2a47fdfceccd5f8832235b7a2df83076e84a98

Cheers,

Richard

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

[Andreas Müller]

On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 11:42 PM, Richard Purdie
<richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
Off-Topic / FYI for me gmail considered your email spam
>
> Removing the libtool files became the project default a while ago (Jan
> 2017):
>
> meta/conf/distro/defaultsetup.conf:INHERIT_DISTRO ?= "debian devshell sstate license remove-libtool"
>
> so I suspect you're in the minority not using that now.
Maybe true. But breaking builds consumes resources on many sides -
this thread is a good example
>
> http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky/commit/meta/conf/distro/defaultsetup.conf?id=3e2a47fdfceccd5f8832235b7a2df83076e84a98
>
The more I think about this:

* Why is remove-libtool something a distro can override? If causing
trouble it can be deactivated recipe-wise.
  - or
* does anybody see a problem with inherit remove-libtool for all xfce
recipes in xfce.bbclass?

Andreas

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

[Mark Asselstine]

On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 6:27 PM, Andreas Müller <schnitzeltony@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 11:42 PM, Richard Purdie
> <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Off-Topic / FYI for me gmail considered your email spam
>>
>> Removing the libtool files became the project default a while ago (Jan
>> 2017):
>>
>> meta/conf/distro/defaultsetup.conf:INHERIT_DISTRO ?= "debian devshell sstate license remove-libtool"
>>
>> so I suspect you're in the minority not using that now.
> Maybe true. But breaking builds consumes resources on many sides -
> this thread is a good example
>>
>> http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky/commit/meta/conf/distro/defaultsetup.conf?id=3e2a47fdfceccd5f8832235b7a2df83076e84a98
>>
> The more I think about this:
>
> * Why is remove-libtool something a distro can override? If causing
> trouble it can be deactivated recipe-wise.


That was my feeling as well as we were having this discussion, without
digging into the history it felt as if this should have been made core
functionality and not optional, especially given the opportunity for
recipes to opt out. At any rate I am about to send a commit to get
things buildable for when the 'remove-libtool' distro feature is
absent and as long as it remains optional I suppose all recipes should
function with and without the feature.

MarkA

>   - or
> * does anybody see a problem with inherit remove-libtool for all xfce
> recipes in xfce.bbclass?
>
> Andreas
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel

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

[Khem Raj]

On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 4:26 PM Mark Asselstine
<mark.asselstine@windriver.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 6:27 PM, Andreas Müller <schnitzeltony@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 11:42 PM, Richard Purdie
> > <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > Off-Topic / FYI for me gmail considered your email spam
> >>
> >> Removing the libtool files became the project default a while ago (Jan
> >> 2017):
> >>
> >> meta/conf/distro/defaultsetup.conf:INHERIT_DISTRO ?= "debian devshell sstate license remove-libtool"
> >>
> >> so I suspect you're in the minority not using that now.
> > Maybe true. But breaking builds consumes resources on many sides -
> > this thread is a good example
> >>
> >> http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky/commit/meta/conf/distro/defaultsetup.conf?id=3e2a47fdfceccd5f8832235b7a2df83076e84a98
> >>
> > The more I think about this:
> >
> > * Why is remove-libtool something a distro can override? If causing
> > trouble it can be deactivated recipe-wise.
>
>
> That was my feeling as well as we were having this discussion, without
> digging into the history it felt as if this should have been made core
> functionality and not optional, especially given the opportunity for
> recipes to opt out. At any rate I am about to send a commit to get
> things buildable for when the 'remove-libtool' distro feature is
> absent and as long as it remains optional I suppose all recipes should
> function with and without the feature.
>

Richard,

initially its good to have it overridable, so give some soak time so a
weak assignment
was right thing IMO so the distros could have some time to soak it.
but may be its
time to enforce it in oe-core.


Mark

I would also also suggest that you switch to using it in your distro,
as well besides the
patches which is fine.

> MarkA
>
> >   - or
> > * does anybody see a problem with inherit remove-libtool for all xfce
> > recipes in xfce.bbclass?
> >
> > Andreas
> > --
> > _______________________________________________
> > Openembedded-devel mailing list
> > Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> > http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel

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

[Richard Purdie]

On Mon, 2018-06-18 at 19:25 -0400, Mark Asselstine wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 6:27 PM, Andreas Müller <schnitzeltony@gmail.
> com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 11:42 PM, Richard Purdie
> > <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > Off-Topic / FYI for me gmail considered your email spam
> > > 
> > > Removing the libtool files became the project default a while ago
> > > (Jan
> > > 2017):
> > > 
> > > meta/conf/distro/defaultsetup.conf:INHERIT_DISTRO ?= "debian
> > > devshell sstate license remove-libtool"
> > > 
> > > so I suspect you're in the minority not using that now.
> > 
> > Maybe true. But breaking builds consumes resources on many sides -
> > this thread is a good example
> > > 
> > > http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky/commit/meta/conf/distro
> > > /defaultsetup.conf?id=3e2a47fdfceccd5f8832235b7a2df83076e84a98
> > > 
> > 
> > The more I think about this:
> > 
> > * Why is remove-libtool something a distro can override? If causing
> > trouble it can be deactivated recipe-wise.
> 
> 
> That was my feeling as well as we were having this discussion,
> without digging into the history it felt as if this should have been
> made core functionality and not optional, especially given the
> opportunity for recipes to opt out. At any rate I am about to send a
> commit to get things buildable for when the 'remove-libtool' distro
> feature is absent and as long as it remains optional I suppose all
> recipes should function with and without the feature.

There are many different features which "distro maintainers" can turn
on/off which can break the builds. I was always reluctant to add the
libtool change but we reached the point where it simply no longer made
sense to keep those files around, they caused more problems than it was
worth effort for.

Its not a setting I'd recommend anyone use now because as you're
finding, the .la handling metadata is bitrotting. As with many things
in the project, its "at your own risk and maintenance burden". Its not
a combination I have any plans to add tests for.

The better solution would be to drop all the .la file FILES directives
and handle .la files in a similar way to the way we handle debug files
into -dbg packages. If anyone cares at this point.

Cheers,

Richard

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

[Khem Raj]

On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 2:53 AM Richard Purdie <
richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 2018-06-18 at 19:25 -0400, Mark Asselstine wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 6:27 PM, Andreas Müller <schnitzeltony@gmail.
> > com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 11:42 PM, Richard Purdie
> > > <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > > Off-Topic / FYI for me gmail considered your email spam
> > > >
> > > > Removing the libtool files became the project default a while ago
> > > > (Jan
> > > > 2017):
> > > >
> > > > meta/conf/distro/defaultsetup.conf:INHERIT_DISTRO ?= "debian
> > > > devshell sstate license remove-libtool"
> > > >
> > > > so I suspect you're in the minority not using that now.
> > >
> > > Maybe true. But breaking builds consumes resources on many sides -
> > > this thread is a good example
> > > >
> > > > http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky/commit/meta/conf/distro
> > > > /defaultsetup.conf?id=3e2a47fdfceccd5f8832235b7a2df83076e84a98
> > > >
> > >
> > > The more I think about this:
> > >
> > > * Why is remove-libtool something a distro can override? If causing
> > > trouble it can be deactivated recipe-wise.
> >
> >
> > That was my feeling as well as we were having this discussion,
> > without digging into the history it felt as if this should have been
> > made core functionality and not optional, especially given the
> > opportunity for recipes to opt out. At any rate I am about to send a
> > commit to get things buildable for when the 'remove-libtool' distro
> > feature is absent and as long as it remains optional I suppose all
> > recipes should function with and without the feature.
>
> There are many different features which "distro maintainers" can turn
> on/off which can break the builds. I was always reluctant to add the
> libtool change but we reached the point where it simply no longer made
> sense to keep those files around, they caused more problems than it was
> worth effort for.
>
> Its not a setting I'd recommend anyone use now because as you're
> finding, the .la handling metadata is bitrotting. As with many things
> in the project, its "at your own risk and maintenance burden". Its not
> a combination I have any plans to add tests for.
>
> The better solution would be to drop all the .la file FILES directives
> and handle .la files in a similar way to the way we handle debug files
> into -dbg packages. If anyone cares at this point.
>

Not worth the effort IMO

>
> Cheers,
>
> Richard
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
>