firmware-qcom: make split packages installable

[lumag]

Since the commit 77e6f45 ("firmware-qcom-nhlos: make sure that meta firmware package is empty") the main package in the split firmware doesn't have any files and thus is skipped by OE. All split firmware packages depend on PN, which can't be fond. Drop the manual dependency, making all split packages installable again.

Closes #2504

[github-actions]

Test run workflow

Test jobs for commit 39f4e4b

nodistro
Pass: 9 | Fail: 0 | Total: 9

qcom-distro_linux-qcom-6.18
Pass: 7 | Fail: 1 | Total: 8

qcom-distro
Pass: 9 | Fail: 1 | Total: 10

[test-reporting-app]

Test Results

  105 files  ± 0    634 suites  ±0   5h 43m 17s ⏱️ - 1h 46m 47s
  129 tests  -  2    107 ✅  -  5   0 💤 ±0  22 ❌ +3 
6 021 runs  +13  5 904 ✅ +12  86 💤 +7  31 ❌  - 6 

For more details on these failures, see this check.

Results for commit 39f4e4b. ± Comparison against base commit f584593.

This pull request removes 5 and adds 3 tests. Note that renamed tests count towards both.

lava ‑ 6_OpenCV
lava ‑ download-retry
lava ‑ downloads
lava ‑ lava-test-retry
lava ‑ lava-test-shell

2_Interrupts ‑ irq
lava ‑ deploy-flasher
lava ‑ deploy-flasher-retry

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

[ricardosalveti]

Is the license now part of the individual packages?

[koenkooi]

Nit: fond → found

[lumag]

Is the license now part of the individual packages?

No, but we have a plenty of packages for which there is no binding license. For example, for the RBn devices Thundercomm doesn't define any licence for the files downloaded via the SDK manager.

[github-actions]

Test run workflow

Test jobs for commit 39f4e4b

nodistro
Pass: 9 | Fail: 0 | Total: 9

qcom-distro_linux-qcom-6.18
Pass: 212 | Fail: 0 | Total: 250

qcom-distro
Pass: 9 | Fail: 1 | Total: 10

[github-actions]

Test run workflow

Test jobs for commit 39f4e4b

nodistro
Pass: 9 | Fail: 0 | Total: 9

qcom-distro_linux-qcom-6.18
Pass: 212 | Fail: 0 | Total: 250

qcom-distro
Pass: 230 | Fail: 6 | Total: 284

[ricardosalveti]

Is the license now part of the individual packages?

No, but we have a plenty of packages for which there is no binding license. For example, for the RBn devices Thundercomm doesn't define any licence for the files downloaded via the SDK manager.

So the license will basically stay as CLOSED, right? Which is not really valid, but not sure we can do much here if we want to keep these recipes around.