From patchwork Wed Jan 23 20:43:20 2013 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Is this a bug? Installed-but-not-packaged warning for a file which is in a package Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 20:43:20 -0000 From: Peter Seebach X-Patchwork-Id: 43239 Message-Id: <20130123144320.191c91a3@e6410-2> To: "Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org" FILES_${PN} = "fascinating" do_install() { touch ${D}/fascinating } At least in our local copy of oe-core, this results in: 1. A package which contains a /fascinating file. 2. An installed-but-unpackaged warning for /fascinating. This confused the heck out of me. I eventually figured it out: The "not in seen" test is not aware of the possibility of differing path names. In general, all path names in FILES_* are being written as absolute paths by convention; in the actual code, this is silently corrected by the addition of a leading period. But an unqualified path works; it's treated as relative to the sysroot/image/whatever, and it has the expected behavior. But then we insert "fascinating" in seen, and check for "./fascinating" in the next phase. Possible solution: Before I send this as an actual patch and such: Is this behavior a bug? If it is a bug, is this the right fix, or should we do something else, like reject non-absolute paths? Note that just adding a / to files that don't start with one doesn't work; there appear to be at least *some* non-absolute paths in some packages. -s diff --git a/meta/classes/package.bbclass b/meta/classes/package.bbclass index b06cca5..9d50a61 100644 --- a/meta/classes/package.bbclass +++ b/meta/classes/package.bbclass @@ -981,6 +981,8 @@ python populate_packages () { file.replace("//", "/") if os.path.isabs(file): file = '.' + file + if not file.startswith("./") + fle = './' + file if not os.path.islink(file): if os.path.isdir(file):