There is nothing that requires, e.g., a DSO to be executable, but it
is still an ELF binary and should be identified as such.
(From OE-Core rev: 8d9cca4956ba1d8438e185af8baa2b64809d7c86)
Signed-off-by: Peter Kjellerstedt <peter.kjellerstedt@axis.com>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
Rather than trying to call rpmdeps with the correct arguments to work
with the sysroot as was done in package.bbclass, create a wrapper for
it like all the other native tools already had.
(From OE-Core rev: 8279881fb0a65b238c6d484a45a71b6c4dd433e2)
Signed-off-by: Peter Kjellerstedt <peter.kjellerstedt@axis.com>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
Use a loop rather than calling create_wrapper for each individual
tool.
(From OE-Core rev: d052c534c5099b9927ec84b23e01341f0aa3ce7d)
Signed-off-by: Peter Kjellerstedt <peter.kjellerstedt@axis.com>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
Currently the file encodes full paths to various host tools in the
HOSTTOOLS directory which is bad in native and target cases. We can
simply use the versions from PATH quite safely in OE.
(From OE-Core rev: be901200d94beaa35e1d05eb502b117b3b523609)
(From OE-Core rev: 2a12c159aae9877a05e0ba023de278cdca59ac45)
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
These tools are not currently used for anything, but we should
still provide working versions of them.
[YOCTO #11400]
(From OE-Core rev: da11fbde6f8164e2774068b99bab84e4b6084713)
Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
The rpm 5 has a rpm-build package, so here should use RPROVIDES rather
than PROVIDES to keep compatibility.
(From OE-Core rev: de2ee88f9cc0fc8d6d92ac2a79364e79a99ae98e)
Signed-off-by: Robert Yang <liezhi.yang@windriver.com>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
rpm 5.x was packaging build tools separately, so we need to unbreak
things that relied on that.
[YOCTO #11167]
(From OE-Core rev: 3b5ac72bdf76ac8ff98dc3c882a4edc77c6e2c33)
Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
The dnf stack is written and tested against rpm 4.x. So if we want to use dnf for packaging,
we should also use rpm 4 - there's simply too much work involved in making rpm 5 work with it due
to significant API differences, and supporting that going forward.
(From OE-Core rev: 2358e786ec8d1199d90e181eb5d8d00816f669b4)
Signed-off-by: Alexander Kanavin <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
Peter Kjellerstedt
Richard Purdie
Alexander Kanavin
Robert Yang