[oe] [RFC] unpackaged files
Dear all, Currently one gets a NOTE if a file is installed but not packaged. However in larger builds this often gets lost. Then again a file installed but not packaged is probably an error. To make things easier trappable and resolvable, I would propose the following: - an option (in due time to be made mandatory) to turn the NOTE into an error - a way to indicate that a file is installed but purposedly not packaged (e.g. I have such a thing in mythtv with a README file) This could be by creating a pseudo-package (like -unused or -ignore) which can be used to add files that are explicitly not packaged How do people feel about this? (and, if desired, is there someone who can implement this, guess this is outside my python skills). Best regards, Frans ___ Openembedded-devel mailing list Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
Re: [oe] [RFC] unpackaged files
В сообщении от Понедельник 11 октября 2010 15:51:05 автор Frans Meulenbroeks написал: - a way to indicate that a file is installed but purposedly not packaged (e.g. I have such a thing in mythtv with a README file) This could be by creating a pseudo-package (like -unused or -ignore) which can be used to add files that are explicitly not packaged Shouldn't such files be removed with do_install_append()? ___ Openembedded-devel mailing list Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
Re: [oe] [RFC] unpackaged files
On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 5:02 AM, Roman I Khimov khi...@altell.ru wrote: В сообщении от Понедельник 11 октября 2010 15:51:05 автор Frans Meulenbroeks написал: - a way to indicate that a file is installed but purposedly not packaged (e.g. I have such a thing in mythtv with a README file) This could be by creating a pseudo-package (like -unused or -ignore) which can be used to add files that are explicitly not packaged Shouldn't such files be removed with do_install_append()? my uneducated suggestion would be dont remove them and do something like Frans suggests, reason being I am noticing packages that do not build with files that you would expect especially ones with -dev tags. or even some not being made like libgcc-dev. But like one off the top of my head would be if you install libpcap and libcap-dev you still do not get a pcap.h to use if you compile something on the machine your built those packages into the image of. ___ Openembedded-devel mailing list Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel ___ Openembedded-devel mailing list Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
Re: [oe] [RFC] unpackaged files
2010/10/11 Roman I Khimov khi...@altell.ru: В сообщении от Понедельник 11 октября 2010 15:51:05 автор Frans Meulenbroeks написал: - a way to indicate that a file is installed but purposedly not packaged (e.g. I have such a thing in mythtv with a README file) This could be by creating a pseudo-package (like -unused or -ignore) which can be used to add files that are explicitly not packaged Shouldn't such files be removed with do_install_append()? This is also an option. Didn't think of that one. No preference for one or another. And in either case we might want to allow choosing this to be handled as error (and, in due time be forced to be an error) Frans ___ Openembedded-devel mailing list Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
Re: [oe] [RFC] unpackaged files
2010/10/11 J. L. vwyodap...@gmail.com: On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 5:02 AM, Roman I Khimov khi...@altell.ru wrote: В сообщении от Понедельник 11 октября 2010 15:51:05 автор Frans Meulenbroeks написал: - a way to indicate that a file is installed but purposedly not packaged (e.g. I have such a thing in mythtv with a README file) This could be by creating a pseudo-package (like -unused or -ignore) which can be used to add files that are explicitly not packaged Shouldn't such files be removed with do_install_append()? rethinking this (after my previous mail) would we get an issue because some files are staged but not packaged (which is generally not the case, but I am thinking about gcc-cross and friends) my uneducated suggestion would be dont remove them and do something like Frans suggests, reason being I am noticing packages that do not build with files that you would expect especially ones with -dev tags. or even some not being made like libgcc-dev. But like one off the top of my head would be if you install libpcap and libcap-dev you still do not get a pcap.h to use if you compile something on the machine your built those packages into the image of. it is not my proposal to make this a real installable package. I just want a mechanism that you can use to tell that a file while being there is on purpose not packaged Wrt your example: I'd say if pcap.h comes from libcpcap, it should probably go into libpcap-dev (or maybe libcap-dev). Frans ___ Openembedded-devel mailing list Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
Re: [oe] [RFC] unpackaged files
2010/10/11 Frans Meulenbroeks fransmeulenbro...@gmail.com: 2010/10/11 J. L. vwyodap...@gmail.com: On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 5:02 AM, Roman I Khimov khi...@altell.ru wrote: В сообщении от Понедельник 11 октября 2010 15:51:05 автор Frans Meulenbroeks написал: - a way to indicate that a file is installed but purposedly not packaged (e.g. I have such a thing in mythtv with a README file) This could be by creating a pseudo-package (like -unused or -ignore) which can be used to add files that are explicitly not packaged Shouldn't such files be removed with do_install_append()? rethinking this (after my previous mail) would we get an issue because some files are staged but not packaged (which is generally not the case, but I am thinking about gcc-cross and friends) my uneducated suggestion would be dont remove them and do something like Frans suggests, reason being I am noticing packages that do not build with files that you would expect especially ones with -dev tags. or even some not being made like libgcc-dev. But like one off the top of my head would be if you install libpcap and libcap-dev you still do not get a pcap.h to use if you compile something on the machine your built those packages into the image of. it is not my proposal to make this a real installable package. I just want a mechanism that you can use to tell that a file while being there is on purpose not packaged Wrt your example: I'd say if pcap.h comes from libcpcap, it should probably go into libpcap-dev (or maybe libcap-dev). Frans ___ Openembedded-devel mailing list Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel Ahh ok sorry miss understood what you wanted. I did run into another one where I installed the built mysql5 and mysql5-dev and it does not provide a mysql.h on the machine, also lots of .dev packages rely on libgcc-dev but there is not an installable version of libgcc-dev. So if you install a -dev after you have the image running you get complaints about no libgcc-dev on the machine. So if I run into things like that I would need to go to that package and figure out why and how to get the .h's I need in the .dev and or figure out how to make the missing -dev ? Thanks ___ Openembedded-devel mailing list Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
