Re: [RFC 0/5] Improving multiarch support for arch-incompatible packages

["'Jan Kiszka' via isar-users" <isar-users@googlegroups.com>]

On 01.10.25 12:59, 'Andreas Naumann' via isar-users wrote:
> Fixing the recursive dependency issue of "all" packages, as proposed by
> Felix, showed that currently the Isar multiarch support seems to assume that
> custom dpkg recipes are always valid for the host as well as target architecure.
> Or, if they are not, Isar would make an effort to redirect if possible.
> 
> However, there are situations where this is not the case, e.g. packages
> supporting a certain architecture only or packages intended for the host
> without full crosscompile compatibility.
> 
> This series is to allow for such cases by supporting DPKG_ARCH being set
> to a specific architecture if it is not truly "all" or "any".
> 
> The first patch fixes unnecessary, possibly incompatible packages being added
> to the overall rootfs dependency chain. It's also sort of an alternative solution
> to the fix that Felix provided in his original patch which I took the
> freedom to rework to contain the recursive dependency fix only.
> The reason I'm going another way is that I was looking for a way to
> generically handle all incompatible packages, not just "Architecutre: all".
> Of course this comes with the "drawback" that "all" packages, suited to be
> compiled in and only for -native, need to be added with their -native name
> whereever they are depended upon.
> 
> As for reverting recrdeptask: IMHO, the alternative to keeping it would be to
> not being able to use cross-package inter-task dependencies, like Jan's
> patch for avoiding the duplicate creation of the dpkg-source package
> does. That would be kind of limiting.
> As for the cache related reasons for which recrdeptask was actually
> introduced: I could not find the do_prepare_build-A -> do_deploy-B
> dependency, but only do_deploy-A -> do_deploy-B. So I'd just hope that
> this is no longer a problem, but havnt invested testing effort to prove so.
> 
> The image patch is preparational, so images are not unintentionally
> skipped by the actual main patch (#4) which handles incompatible
> packages.
> It was made before handling of packages with unset DPKG_ARCH variable
> was added, so it's no longer strictly needed, but may be worthwhile
> anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andreas Naumann (4):
>   rootfs: Do not recursively deploy every dependent package
>   image: Do not inherit multiarch
>   multiarch: Prevent providing incompatible native packages
>   multiarch: Do not re-extend real -native recipes
> 
> Felix Moessbauer' via isar-users (1):
>   multiarch: handle DPKG_ARCH=all case for transitive deps
> 
>  meta/classes/image.bbclass     |  1 -
>  meta/classes/multiarch.bbclass | 33 ++++++++++++++-------------------
>  meta/classes/rootfs.bbclass    | 19 ++++++++++++++++++-
>  3 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
> 

Adriaan, someone is touching your bits :)

Jan

-- 
Siemens AG, Foundational Technologies
Linux Expert Center

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "isar-users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to isar-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/isar-users/3051e65f-e4b0-4729-8ac5-9c8dfb77a7ac%40siemens.com.