**** BEGIN LOGGING AT Fri Feb 22 02:59:56 2019 Feb 22 12:49:22 is there any pattern regarding what recipes start with "lib" and which don't? Feb 22 12:49:58 usually those that package a library start with lib. Feb 22 12:50:01 ;-) Feb 22 12:50:06 mort: mainly based on what upstream calls their tarballs Feb 22 12:50:17 hmm Feb 22 12:50:42 some historical oddities but they're rare Feb 22 12:50:47 too much hassle to rename them Feb 22 12:51:36 LetoThe2nd: just now I noticed that libjpeg is in the recipe called "jpeg" and libpng is in the recipe "libpng", libcairo is in "cairo", maybe it's "usually" as in >50% of the time but it's certainly not always Feb 22 12:52:35 mort: the "SCNR" means "sorry, could not resist" and indicates that my statement is not to be taken too seriously. Feb 22 12:52:43 ah Feb 22 12:53:33 mort: https://www.cairographics.org/news/cairo-1.16.0/ <-- cairo is in a tarball called cairo-1.16.0.tar.xz Feb 22 12:54:09 http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/libpng/libpng-1.6.36.tar.xz?download <-- libpng is libpng-1.6.36.tar.xz Feb 22 12:58:10 apparently libjpeg calls itself libjpeg literally everywhere, except that the file it delivers (through sourceforge of all places) is called jpegsr6.zip Feb 22 13:00:26 and recent OE doesn't even ship that Feb 22 13:03:25 I'm having bitbake complain that my -dev package contains non-symlink .so files. I only implement do_compile and do_install, where do_install puts the .so files in ${D}${libdir}, and I was under the impression that bitbake would take care of packaging things correctly for me? Feb 22 13:08:37 mort: presumably library isn't versioned Feb 22 13:08:59 https://wiki.yoctoproject.org/wiki/TipsAndTricks/Packaging_Prebuilt_Libraries#Non-versioned_Libraries Feb 22 13:09:26 the packaging assumes that you're following convention: real library is libfoo.so.1.2.3, and libfoo.so is a symlink Feb 22 13:09:50 if that's not what is happening then either version your libraries, or do what that link says to go against convention Feb 22 13:11:15 I see Feb 22 13:53:55 I have a patch series to bring systemd in sumo up to thud's CVE patch level. However master, thud and sumo are missing the fix for CVE-2019-6454. Should I just send the series without it? Feb 22 14:39:54 georgem: ideally send patches for thud/master for 6454 first Feb 22 14:41:11 rburton: I Feb 22 14:41:29 I need to setup an environment to build those. I'll see if I can fit it in my schedule. Feb 22 16:04:13 rburton: there are 5 commits in systemd-stable 239 branch related to CVE-2019-6454. there is no fix in the systemd-stable 237 branch. Ubuntu has the fixes (I'm assuming they didn't miss anything) in a single patch file for 239 (master/thud) and 237(sumo). Have a preference what I send for master? Feb 22 16:04:56 the signle patch from ubuntu sounds good Feb 22 16:05:01 okay. cool Feb 22 16:34:21 ugh. there is a second Ubuntu patch for the issue. It's not labeled in the patch, didn't find it until I looked at the changelog. Feb 22 16:55:50 ok. sent to the list. Feb 22 18:04:28 JaMa: I see failures like this http://ix.io/1BLr on qtlocation see full log https://errors.yoctoproject.org/Errors/Details/229883/ this is musl/x86 Feb 22 20:19:54 khem: there were some reports of qtlocation failing (on github issues), but IIRC they were different than this and I've never seen either of them in my local builds Feb 22 20:20:35 khem: I was building latest qtlocation even recently with yoe as well (after fixing meta-atmel bbappend) Feb 22 20:20:48 but none of my builds were using musl Feb 22 21:49:32 JaMa:its only on musl Feb 22 21:49:55 DISTRO=yoe-musl-sysvinit-wayland Feb 22 21:52:09 and behan thinks we have naming issues Feb 22 22:30:45 Crofton, just don't get khem started.. He knows German Feb 22 22:31:44 just think how long he could make the DISTRO Feb 22 22:44:17 das ist polymorphismus Feb 22 23:30:14 * armpit jams to Jawaiian **** ENDING LOGGING AT Sat Feb 23 02:59:56 2019