**** BEGIN LOGGING AT Fri Nov 14 03:00:00 2014 Nov 14 07:51:32 good morning Nov 14 08:45:39 If a recipy creates an additional package via PACKAGES += ..., how do you specify that package's PV? Nov 14 08:46:42 Is it legal to have something like PACKAGES += "foo-package_1.0" instead of the regular PACKAGES += "foo-package"? Nov 14 10:26:42 Is Andreas Muller here? Nov 14 12:54:44 Hi. I'm trying to slim down which packages are being built in my Yocto setup. If I have a recipe foo.bb that creates a subpackage "foo-bar", and "foo-bar_RDEPENDS = xxx", but I won't be installing foo-bar in my image, it still looks like "xxx" is built. Since it's not a build dep., but a runtime dep., can I avoid building this ? Nov 14 12:55:21 And in fact shouldn't this be the default behaviour ? Nov 14 12:57:27 kroon: if foo-bar is not included in your image, why does it get built in the first place? Nov 14 12:58:11 ndec, right, in my case there is another subpackage foo-bla, that I actually install in the image Nov 14 12:58:21 forgot to mention that Nov 14 12:58:34 ok. Nov 14 12:58:49 and xxx is provided by another recipe, right? Nov 14 12:59:00 yes (perl in my case) Nov 14 12:59:24 I figured out that I could short-circuit the RDEPENDS in my distro.conf for this recipe Nov 14 12:59:49 But it feels like somthing bitbake could sort out automatically Nov 14 12:59:55 since you are actually building foo-bar, it will build all RDEPENDS indeed. i don't think you can avoid that. Nov 14 13:00:44 but if it wouldn't build the RDEPENDS, then that would make your package un-installable. so the build system is trying to avoid that situation. Nov 14 13:01:02 e.g. the package feed would be wrong for example. Nov 14 13:04:57 but aren't subpackages always created by taking selected parts of a "recipe" install output directory, and putting the files in subpackages ? couldn't bitbake just detect that I won't be installing foo-bar, therefore skip generating the subpackage in the first place Nov 14 13:06:43 skip creating the subpackage, skip building it's RDEPENDS, and no broken packages created Nov 14 13:19:32 kroon: yes, that is correct. but bitbake cannot make assumption about what images you will be building later (in another bitbake run) or whether or not you will be installing that dependencies from a package feed. Nov 14 13:25:16 ndec, yeah, i see your point Nov 14 13:25:43 what you've done seems fine. e.g. in your DISTRO you can make assumption about what *you* are doing. Nov 14 13:30:07 ndec, it would be nice if bitbake could help me though. cause I think it knows at the time I bitbake my image, which rdepends I acually didn't need Nov 14 13:30:26 for that particular image at least Nov 14 13:30:55 right.. maybe there is a way to extract the info from buildhistory Nov 14 15:01:11 ndec, thanks for the pointers, gotta run Nov 14 16:06:21 should I be worried about stuff like this? ../temp/log.do_package.13579:DEBUG: nativesdk-python-lxml: Dependency libc.so.6 requires package nativesdk-eglibc **** ENDING LOGGING AT Sat Nov 15 03:00:00 2014