[Toaster] Review Request: 9121 Remove direct/indirect dependents of a package

[Lerner, Dave]

Hi Belen,

Per your comments, I won't submit a version 2.  

Regarding something that you wanted checked...
> This is probably a typo, but just in case: after building, atk, glib2.0
> and libpcre were removed. libffi was not removed, neither before nor after
> the build, but it was not mentioned in the dialog either when removing
> libpcre, so from the outside it looks like Toaster did the right thing.

You were right, it was a typo, libpcre does not have libffi as a direct or indirect reverse dependency.

Thanks,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Barros Pena, Belen [mailto:belen.barros.pena at intel.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 14, 2016 11:18 AM
> To: Lerner, Dave; toaster at yoctoproject.org
> Subject: Re: [Toaster] Review Request: 9121 Remove direct/indirect dependents of a
> package
> 
> 
> 
> On 11/03/2016 16:29, "toaster-bounces at yoctoproject.org on behalf of Dave
> Lerner" <toaster-bounces at yoctoproject.org on behalf of
> dave.lerner at windriver.com> wrote:
> 
> >Target Branch: toaster-next, master
> >Contrib Branch: poky-contrib/dlerner/9121-delete-dependent-package-tree
> >
> >Defect: 9121
> >Summary: Show and remove direct and indirect dependents when removing
> >package
> 
> This seems to be working for me. Only one small note below about one of
> the test cases.
> 
> The other thing we might change is the notification message. Apologies: I
> realise this was not covered in the design document I attached to
> Bugzilla.
> 
> * In the dialog we use the expression "reverse dependencies". We know is
> not perfect as expressions go, but it is used consistently across Toaster.
> The notification message, however, uses the word "dependents" instead. I
> think we should also use "reverse dependencies" there so that we are
> consistently awful ;) So we would say something like:
> 
> "You have removed 3 packages from <custom-image-name>: libpcre and it's 2
> reverse dependencies"
> 
> Or
> 
> "You have removed 2 packages from <custom-image-name>: libpcre and its
> reverse dependency"
> 
> * When you add a package we show the dependency names. I think we should
> do the same when removing reverse dependencies. Obviously, we need to set
> some kind of limit (we can't really list 39 packages). But often we will
> be dealing with 2 to 5 packages, and in those cases it is useful I think
> to show the names. So we would say something like:
> 
> "You have removed 3 packages from <custom-image-name>: libpcre and its
> reverse dependencies atk and glib-2.0"
> 
> 
> In any case, this should not stop merging these patches: it's a minor
> issue, and we can make the changes later on.
> 
> >
> >CASE Test no interference removing from a  2nd custom image in project
> >----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >New custom-image based on core-image-sato 'myminimal'
> >Build it
> >Add atk which is dependent on glib-2.0, libffi, libpcre
> >Build myminimal again.
> >Verify that atk, libffi, libpcre, glib-2.0 have files in the file system
> >For custom image myminimal, enter libpcre, remove package
> >    Verify modal dlg notes atk and glib-2.0 will be removed Remove
> >Build
> >    Verify atk, glib2.0 libffi are removed.
> 
> This is probably a typo, but just in case: after building, atk, glib2.0
> and libpcre were removed. libffi was not removed, neither before nor after
> the build, but it was not mentioned in the dialog either when removing
> libpcre, so from the outside it looks like Toaster did the right thing.
> Thanks!
> 
> Belén
> 
> >
> >--
> >_______________________________________________
> >toaster mailing list
> >toaster at yoctoproject.org
> >https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/toaster
>