| Submitter | Andreas Oberritter |
|---|---|
| Date | Feb. 9, 2012, 12:41 p.m. |
| Message ID | <4F33BF11.4010009@opendreambox.org> |
| Download | mbox | patch |
| Permalink | /patch/21043/ |
| State | Accepted |
| Commit | f45774e2b07523cf45d1bb8b720f8757359bb47e |
| Headers | show |
Comments
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 10:41, Andreas Oberritter <obi@opendreambox.org>wrote: > 1.) Pass --disable-x11 unconditionally like Debian/Ubuntu > 2.) Add virtual/libx11 to DEPENDS, if x11 is defined in > DISTRO_FEATURES, and add --enable/diable-x11 to EXTRA_OECONF > > Because the current recipe didn't depend on libX11 and no one > complained about it, I question the usefulness of linking giflib > against x11. Therefore I vote for option 1 (see patch below). > I voce for 1 too.
On Thursday 09 February 2012 13:41:53 Andreas Oberritter wrote: > On 09.02.2012 01:54, Andreas Oberritter wrote: > > On 08.02.2012 20:48, Otavio Salvador wrote: > >> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 17:35, Andreas Oberritter <obi@opendreambox.org>wrote: > >>> I already explained in the commit message, why a PR bump is not needed. > >>> Can you please explain which other possible failures you're expecting, > >>> so I can learn why my reasoning may be wrong? > >>> > >>> This patch only fixes an unavailable build dependency at bitbake level, > >>> nothing more. > >> > >> Can the user call: > >> > >> bitbake libsm > >> > >> and then build giflib? in case of positive, we need to enforce have or > >> not > >> it linked. > > > > At the time I created the patch, the user couldn't run bitbake libsm > > (for the same reason that it wouldn't be built automatically through > > giflib's DEPENDS). > > > > That said, I updated the repos after your mail and ran bitbake libsm in > > order to get the error message again, but the error vanished. > > Apparently, an indirect dependency on libx11 was dropped during the last > > few weeks. I searched the logs, but didn't find the change. Strange. > > Now, many x11 packages got built even though x11 still wasn't listed in > > my DISTRO_FEATURES. > > > > Anyway, please consider this patch obsolete. I'll probably resend an > > updated version together with other patches to disable some more x11 > > libraries on demand. > > I did some further research regarding giflib: > > - giflib doesn't depend on libSM alone, but optionally depends on > libX11. When linked against libX11, it also links agains libSM and > libICE, under certain conditions. Since libSM does not depend on > libX11, the current giflib build is non-deterministic. > > - Debian's/Ubuntu's giflib gets configured with --disable-x11 > unconditionally. > > So we have two options: > > 1.) Pass --disable-x11 unconditionally like Debian/Ubuntu > 2.) Add virtual/libx11 to DEPENDS, if x11 is defined in > DISTRO_FEATURES, and add --enable/diable-x11 to EXTRA_OECONF > > Because the current recipe didn't depend on libX11 and no one > complained about it, I question the usefulness of linking giflib > against x11. Therefore I vote for option 1 (see patch below). > > What does giflib do if linked against libX11? > - It builds a tool called gif2x11 > - DumpScreen2Gif() gains support for dumping X11 windows I'd agree with disabling it as well. According to google it was Henning who added libsm as a dependency in OE-Classic. Henning, do you remember the reason for adding this, and is it still valid? Cheers, Paul
On Thursday 09 February 2012 13:41:53 Andreas Oberritter wrote: > On 09.02.2012 01:54, Andreas Oberritter wrote: > > On 08.02.2012 20:48, Otavio Salvador wrote: > >> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 17:35, Andreas Oberritter <obi@opendreambox.org>wrote: > >>> I already explained in the commit message, why a PR bump is not needed. > >>> Can you please explain which other possible failures you're expecting, > >>> so I can learn why my reasoning may be wrong? > >>> > >>> This patch only fixes an unavailable build dependency at bitbake level, > >>> nothing more. > >> > >> Can the user call: > >> > >> bitbake libsm > >> > >> and then build giflib? in case of positive, we need to enforce have or > >> not > >> it linked. > > > > At the time I created the patch, the user couldn't run bitbake libsm > > (for the same reason that it wouldn't be built automatically through > > giflib's DEPENDS). > > > > That said, I updated the repos after your mail and ran bitbake libsm in > > order to get the error message again, but the error vanished. > > Apparently, an indirect dependency on libx11 was dropped during the last > > few weeks. I searched the logs, but didn't find the change. Strange. > > Now, many x11 packages got built even though x11 still wasn't listed in > > my DISTRO_FEATURES. > > > > Anyway, please consider this patch obsolete. I'll probably resend an > > updated version together with other patches to disable some more x11 > > libraries on demand. > > I did some further research regarding giflib: > > - giflib doesn't depend on libSM alone, but optionally depends on > libX11. When linked against libX11, it also links agains libSM and > libICE, under certain conditions. Since libSM does not depend on > libX11, the current giflib build is non-deterministic. > > - Debian's/Ubuntu's giflib gets configured with --disable-x11 > unconditionally. > > So we have two options: > > 1.) Pass --disable-x11 unconditionally like Debian/Ubuntu > 2.) Add virtual/libx11 to DEPENDS, if x11 is defined in > DISTRO_FEATURES, and add --enable/diable-x11 to EXTRA_OECONF > > Because the current recipe didn't depend on libX11 and no one > complained about it, I question the usefulness of linking giflib > against x11. Therefore I vote for option 1 (see patch below). > > What does giflib do if linked against libX11? > - It builds a tool called gif2x11 > - DumpScreen2Gif() gains support for dumping X11 windows I'd agree with disabling it as well. According to google it was Henning who added libsm as a dependency in OE-Classic. Henning, do you remember the reason for adding this, and is it still valid? Cheers, Paul [resend due to incorrect email address]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Op 09-02-12 13:41, Andreas Oberritter schreef: > On 09.02.2012 01:54, Andreas Oberritter wrote: >> On 08.02.2012 20:48, Otavio Salvador wrote: >>> On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 17:35, Andreas Oberritter >>> <obi@opendreambox.org>wrote: >>> >>>> I already explained in the commit message, why a PR bump is not >>>> needed. Can you please explain which other possible failures you're >>>> expecting, so I can learn why my reasoning may be wrong? >>>> >>>> This patch only fixes an unavailable build dependency at bitbake >>>> level, nothing more. >>>> >>> >>> Can the user call: >>> >>> bitbake libsm >>> >>> and then build giflib? in case of positive, we need to enforce have >>> or not it linked. >> >> At the time I created the patch, the user couldn't run bitbake libsm >> (for the same reason that it wouldn't be built automatically through >> giflib's DEPENDS). >> >> That said, I updated the repos after your mail and ran bitbake libsm >> in order to get the error message again, but the error vanished. >> Apparently, an indirect dependency on libx11 was dropped during the >> last few weeks. I searched the logs, but didn't find the change. >> Strange. Now, many x11 packages got built even though x11 still wasn't >> listed in my DISTRO_FEATURES. >> >> Anyway, please consider this patch obsolete. I'll probably resend an >> updated version together with other patches to disable some more x11 >> libraries on demand. > > I did some further research regarding giflib: > > - giflib doesn't depend on libSM alone, but optionally depends on libX11. > When linked against libX11, it also links agains libSM and libICE, under > certain conditions. Since libSM does not depend on libX11, the current > giflib build is non-deterministic. > > - Debian's/Ubuntu's giflib gets configured with --disable-x11 > unconditionally. > > So we have two options: > > 1.) Pass --disable-x11 unconditionally like Debian/Ubuntu 2.) Add > virtual/libx11 to DEPENDS, if x11 is defined in DISTRO_FEATURES, and add > --enable/diable-x11 to EXTRA_OECONF I'd go for 1) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (Darwin) Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iEYEARECAAYFAk80FV4ACgkQMkyGM64RGpF1qQCdEZNQIneqMvodDIP02X3FLWtG xYQAnj9BM2jzRHa6mPJDy4NfcYo28vHR =iwwe -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Thu, Feb 09, 2012 at 02:02:51PM +0000, Paul Eggleton wrote: > I'd agree with disabling it as well. According to google it was Henning who > added libsm as a dependency in OE-Classic. Henning, do you remember the reason > for adding this, and is it still valid? > > Cheers, > Paul Sorry no idea, why I added it. But I vote for option 1 too, so folks without X11 needs do not have to build X11. Bye Henning
Patch
diff --git a/meta-oe/recipes-devtools/giflib/giflib_4.1.6.bb b/meta-oe/recipes-devtools/giflib/giflib_4.1.6.bb index bd7b495..e1a0777 100644 --- a/meta-oe/recipes-devtools/giflib/giflib_4.1.6.bb +++ b/meta-oe/recipes-devtools/giflib/giflib_4.1.6.bb @@ -2,13 +2,13 @@ DESCRIPTION = "shared library for GIF images" SECTION = "libs" LICENSE = "MIT" LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://COPYING;md5=ae11c61b04b2917be39b11f78d71519a" -PR = "r2" +PR = "r3" SRC_URI = "${SOURCEFORGE_MIRROR}/giflib/${BP}.tar.bz2" inherit autotools -DEPENDS = "libsm" +EXTRA_OECONF = "--disable-x11" PACKAGES += "${PN}-utils" FILES_${PN} = "${libdir}/libgif.so.*"