| Submitter | Saul Wold |
|---|---|
| Date | July 13, 2011, 7:33 a.m. |
| Message ID | <79c857d74346635be316e2bf42dc8d4224095da2.1310541680.git.sgw@linux.intel.com> |
| Download | mbox | patch |
| Permalink | /patch/7473/ |
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
Comments
On Wed, 2011-07-13 at 00:33 -0700, Saul Wold wrote:
> +RDEPENDS_lib${PN} = "${PN}"
Why do we want lib${PN} to have a hard dependency on ${PN}? This seems
somewhat backwards to me.
Also, if ${PN} is the one with the binaries then it will get an
auto-generated dependency back to lib${PN} anyway and it looks like this
will cause a dependency loop.
Also also, if it really is correct for lib${PN} to RDEPEND on ${PN}
then, in the general case, it probably ought to be a precisely versioned
dependency to guarantee correctness. Individual recipes can relax that
if they want to.
p.
Patch
diff --git a/meta/classes/shlibpackaging.bbclass b/meta/classes/shlibpackaging.bbclass new file mode 100644 index 0000000..3406793 --- /dev/null +++ b/meta/classes/shlibpackaging.bbclass @@ -0,0 +1,9 @@ +# +# This bbclass it a common case for lib${PN} shared libraries +# +SUMMARY_lib${PN} ?= "${SUMMARY} - Shared Libraries" +DESCRIPTION_lib${PN} ?= "${DESCRIPTION} This package contains the shared libraries" + +PACKAGES =+ "lib${PN}" +FILES_lib${PN} = "${libdir}/*${SOLIBS} ${base_libdir}/*${SOLIBS}" +RDEPENDS_lib${PN} = "${PN}"
This class is for packages that do not work with debian library naming Signed-off-by: Saul Wold <sgw@linux.intel.com> --- meta/classes/shlibpackaging.bbclass | 9 +++++++++ 1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) create mode 100644 meta/classes/shlibpackaging.bbclass