[yocto] [PATCH V4 03/10] utils.py: remove obsolete dependencies

[Robert Yang]

On 06/22/2017 07:54 PM, Paul Eggleton wrote:
> On Thursday, 22 June 2017 12:47:31 PM CEST Robert Yang wrote:
>> On 06/21/2017 05:06 PM, Paul Eggleton wrote:
>>> So I do see the need to clear out old dependency values when your list of
>>> dependencies is coming entirely from LAYERDEPENDS, however if you have only
>>> manually added dependencies and LAYERDEPENDS is not complete (as is often the
>>> case in the OE layer index), will this automatically remove those? If so I
>>
>> The dependencies will be removed if it is not in conf/layer.conf.
>>
>>> think we're going to have to come up with some mechanism to avoid that.
>>> Probably the easiest one would be to avoid touching the dependencies unless
>>> LAYERDEPENDS actually changes. Of course if that means we're going to store
>>> the previous LAYERDEPENDS value somewhere to compare to, we'd need to avoid it
>>> triggering initially when none of those values are set.
>>
>> Why not fix conf/layer.conf rather than fix it from database ? If
>> conf/layer.conf is wrong, we would meet problems elsewhere.
>
> Up until now it hasn't caused any issues other than not getting an error
> up front from bitbake when a dependencies are missing, so it can easily go
> unnoticed (particularly when users follow manual instructions or use existing
> configurations rather than an automated tool that pays attention to
> LAYERDEPENDS).
>
>> The database
>> should obey local.conf when mismatches, otherwise, this would confuse
>> users a lot when they want to update LAYERDEPENDS.
>
> As I indicated, I agree that if LAYERDEPENDS gets updated then the
> dependencies in the database should get updated. My concern is updating
> them if LAYERDEPENDS has not changed and it simply happens to have
> a difference to what is in the database (most importantly if it has less
> dependencies specified).
>
>> I'm glad to fix oe-classic's LAYERDEPENDS issues if they are wrong.
>
> Well, it's not so much OE-Classic as every single layer in the index,
> maintained by a number of different maintainers. I agree in the long term we
> do want people to fix their dependencies. The trouble is we don't
> even know the size of the problem at the moment, and if it's widespread
> then we'll end up dropping dependencies potentially leading to errors during
> parsing.
>
> How about this - could we start with a setting in the configuration that
> specifies that dependencies should be updated automatically, and if not
> set just gives a warning if the dependencies are not the same? We can
> then decide how to handle it when we see the warnings we're getting in
> the OE index.

Sounds good to me, I will fix it in V5.

// Robert

>
> Cheers,
> Paul
>