* newbie question: license.manifest vs. package.manifest vs. opkg list
@ 2013-01-25 1:15 Paul Kovitz
2013-01-25 14:59 ` Maupin, Chase
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Paul Kovitz @ 2013-01-25 1:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: meta-arago@arago-project.org
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1515 bytes --]
I am using the 05.06.00.00 baseline. I have an image recipe that I created
by removing some packages from tisdk-rootfs-image.bb, changing the
ARAGO_QT_PROVIDER_armv7a from qt4-embedded-gles to qt4-embedded and making
edits to task-arago-tisdk-graphics.bb and task-arago-tisdk-matrix.bb to not
use packages that rely on opengl-es to run. The image worked as expected on
the target hardware for the tests I ran.
I wanted to understand the licenses this build used, so I looked
in build/arago-tmp-external-arago-toolchain/deploy/licenses/[my new image
name] and saw the license.manifest and package.manifest files. To verify
package.manifest, I looked at the packages the target displayed as a result
of opkg list and compared the output package.manifest. The opkg list
command listed two packages that are not in package.manifest. The other 288
package names match exactly. The same build has 69 more package names in
package.manifest than there are in license.manaifest. The other 219 package
names match exactly.
I thought I must have done something wrong, so I built base-arago-image
from the 05.06.00.00 release and looked at the
arago-tmp-external-arago-toolchain/deploy/licenses/arago-base-image-am335x-evm-20130124231158
directory. There are 11 more package names in package.manifest than there
are in license.manifest. The other 40 names match exactly.
Am I doing something wrong, or is this expected behavior, or perhaps both?
Thanks in advance for the help.
--
Paul Kovitz
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1859 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: newbie question: license.manifest vs. package.manifest vs. opkg list
2013-01-25 1:15 newbie question: license.manifest vs. package.manifest vs. opkg list Paul Kovitz
@ 2013-01-25 14:59 ` Maupin, Chase
2013-01-25 17:46 ` Paul Kovitz
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Maupin, Chase @ 2013-01-25 14:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Paul Kovitz, meta-arago@arago-project.org
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2242 bytes --]
Paul,
Can you give some examples of a package listed in the package.manifest that is not in the license.manifest file?
Sincerely,
Chase Maupin
Integration Team Manager
Linux Core Product Development
e-mail: chase.maupin@ti.com
phone: (214) 567-2950
For support:
Forums - http://community.ti.com/forums/
Wiki - http://wiki.davincidsp.com/
From: meta-arago-bounces@arago-project.org [mailto:meta-arago-bounces@arago-project.org] On Behalf Of Paul Kovitz
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 7:15 PM
To: meta-arago@arago-project.org
Subject: [meta-arago] newbie question: license.manifest vs. package.manifest vs. opkg list
I am using the 05.06.00.00 baseline. I have an image recipe that I created by removing some packages from tisdk-rootfs-image.bb<http://tisdk-rootfs-image.bb>, changing the ARAGO_QT_PROVIDER_armv7a from qt4-embedded-gles to qt4-embedded and making edits to task-arago-tisdk-graphics.bb<http://task-arago-tisdk-graphics.bb> and task-arago-tisdk-matrix.bb<http://task-arago-tisdk-matrix.bb> to not use packages that rely on opengl-es to run. The image worked as expected on the target hardware for the tests I ran.
I wanted to understand the licenses this build used, so I looked in build/arago-tmp-external-arago-toolchain/deploy/licenses/[my new image name] and saw the license.manifest and package.manifest files. To verify package.manifest, I looked at the packages the target displayed as a result of opkg list and compared the output package.manifest. The opkg list command listed two packages that are not in package.manifest. The other 288 package names match exactly. The same build has 69 more package names in package.manifest than there are in license.manaifest. The other 219 package names match exactly.
I thought I must have done something wrong, so I built base-arago-image from the 05.06.00.00 release and looked at the arago-tmp-external-arago-toolchain/deploy/licenses/arago-base-image-am335x-evm-20130124231158 directory. There are 11 more package names in package.manifest than there are in license.manifest. The other 40 names match exactly.
Am I doing something wrong, or is this expected behavior, or perhaps both? Thanks in advance for the help.
--
Paul Kovitz
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 8960 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: newbie question: license.manifest vs. package.manifest vs. opkg list
2013-01-25 14:59 ` Maupin, Chase
@ 2013-01-25 17:46 ` Paul Kovitz
2013-01-25 22:33 ` Maupin, Chase
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Paul Kovitz @ 2013-01-25 17:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Maupin, Chase; +Cc: meta-arago@arago-project.org
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2928 bytes --]
Hi Chase. Thanks for the help. For the arago-base-image I generated, the
following files are in package.manifest but not in license.manifest:
libasound2
libcrypto1.0.0
libcurl5
liblzo2-2
libopkg1
libssl1.0.0
libtinfo5
libusb-0.1-4
libusb-1.0-0
libuuid1
libz1
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 6:59 AM, Maupin, Chase <chase.maupin@ti.com> wrote:
> Paul,****
>
> ** **
>
> Can you give some examples of a package listed in the package.manifest
> that is not in the license.manifest file?****
>
> ** **
>
> Sincerely,
> Chase Maupin
> Integration Team Manager
> Linux Core Product Development
> e-mail: chase.maupin@ti.com
> phone: (214) 567-2950
>
> For support:
> Forums - http://community.ti.com/forums/
> Wiki - http://wiki.davincidsp.com/ ****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* meta-arago-bounces@arago-project.org [mailto:
> meta-arago-bounces@arago-project.org] *On Behalf Of *Paul Kovitz
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 24, 2013 7:15 PM
> *To:* meta-arago@arago-project.org
> *Subject:* [meta-arago] newbie question: license.manifest vs.
> package.manifest vs. opkg list****
>
> ** **
>
> I am using the 05.06.00.00 baseline. I have an image recipe that I created
> by removing some packages from tisdk-rootfs-image.bb, changing the
> ARAGO_QT_PROVIDER_armv7a from qt4-embedded-gles to qt4-embedded and making
> edits to task-arago-tisdk-graphics.bb and task-arago-tisdk-matrix.bb to
> not use packages that rely on opengl-es to run. The image worked as
> expected on the target hardware for the tests I ran. ****
>
> ** **
>
> I wanted to understand the licenses this build used, so I looked
> in build/arago-tmp-external-arago-toolchain/deploy/licenses/[my new image
> name] and saw the license.manifest and package.manifest files. To verify
> package.manifest, I looked at the packages the target displayed as a result
> of opkg list and compared the output package.manifest. The opkg list
> command listed two packages that are not in package.manifest. The other 288
> package names match exactly. The same build has 69 more package names in
> package.manifest than there are in license.manaifest. The other 219 package
> names match exactly.****
>
> ** **
>
> I thought I must have done something wrong, so I built base-arago-image
> from the 05.06.00.00 release and looked at the
> arago-tmp-external-arago-toolchain/deploy/licenses/arago-base-image-am335x-evm-20130124231158
> directory. There are 11 more package names in package.manifest than there
> are in license.manifest. The other 40 names match exactly.****
>
> ** **
>
> Am I doing something wrong, or is this expected behavior, or perhaps both?
> Thanks in advance for the help.****
>
> ** **
>
> --
> Paul Kovitz****
>
> ** **
>
--
Paul Kovitz
Lead Embedded Software Engineer
Welch Allyn
8500 SW Creekside Place
Beaverton, OR 97008
503-530-7304 (voice)
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6946 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: newbie question: license.manifest vs. package.manifest vs. opkg list
2013-01-25 17:46 ` Paul Kovitz
@ 2013-01-25 22:33 ` Maupin, Chase
2013-01-25 22:50 ` Denys Dmytriyenko
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Maupin, Chase @ 2013-01-25 22:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Paul Kovitz; +Cc: meta-arago@arago-project.org
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4846 bytes --]
Paul,
The license.bbclass which creates these files is making a list of installed packages (package.manifest) from the image, and then trying to look in the following directory for a file with that name to parse the data from:
${TMPDIR}/pkgdata/*/runtime -name ${pkg}
However, in that directory for example the libasound2 package information is in a file called libasound without the 2. Hence it finds no information and doesn’t make an entry. This seems to have something to do with the number that is added to the name of the package, but which is not in the name of the PACKAGE as it is defined in the PACKAGES variable.
I have not yet been able to track down why this is occuring. I see output in the log files like:
log.do_package_write_ipk:Packaged contents of libasound into /home/a0271661/projects/yocto-training/build-setup/oe-layersetup/build/arago-tmp-external-arago-toolchain/work/armv7a-vfp-neon-oe-linux-gnueabi/alsa-lib-1.0.25-r1/deploy-ipks/armv7a-vfp-neon/libasound2_1.0.25-r1_armv7a-vfp-neon.ipk
Which indicates that somewhere in the do_package_write_ipk function the libasound was changed to libasound2. What is causing me grief is that I cannot find where this message is being printed to look at the code around it :(
The kind of good news is that it looks like the core package (like alsa-lib) is in the manifest with the license, but I’d still like to resolve this mystery.
Sincerely,
Chase Maupin
Integration Team Manager
Linux Core Product Development
e-mail: chase.maupin@ti.com
phone: (214) 567-2950
For support:
Forums - http://community.ti.com/forums/
Wiki - http://wiki.davincidsp.com/
From: Paul Kovitz [mailto:paul.kovitz@welchallyn.com]
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 11:46 AM
To: Maupin, Chase
Cc: meta-arago@arago-project.org
Subject: Re: [meta-arago] newbie question: license.manifest vs. package.manifest vs. opkg list
Hi Chase. Thanks for the help. For the arago-base-image I generated, the following files are in package.manifest but not in license.manifest:
libasound2
libcrypto1.0.0
libcurl5
liblzo2-2
libopkg1
libssl1.0.0
libtinfo5
libusb-0.1-4
libusb-1.0-0
libuuid1
libz1
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 6:59 AM, Maupin, Chase <chase.maupin@ti.com<mailto:chase.maupin@ti.com>> wrote:
Paul,
Can you give some examples of a package listed in the package.manifest that is not in the license.manifest file?
Sincerely,
Chase Maupin
Integration Team Manager
Linux Core Product Development
e-mail: chase.maupin@ti.com<mailto:chase.maupin@ti.com>
phone: (214) 567-2950<tel:%28214%29%20567-2950>
For support:
Forums - http://community.ti.com/forums/
Wiki - http://wiki.davincidsp.com/
From: meta-arago-bounces@arago-project.org<mailto:meta-arago-bounces@arago-project.org> [mailto:meta-arago-bounces@arago-project.org<mailto:meta-arago-bounces@arago-project.org>] On Behalf Of Paul Kovitz
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 7:15 PM
To: meta-arago@arago-project.org<mailto:meta-arago@arago-project.org>
Subject: [meta-arago] newbie question: license.manifest vs. package.manifest vs. opkg list
I am using the 05.06.00.00 baseline. I have an image recipe that I created by removing some packages from tisdk-rootfs-image.bb<http://tisdk-rootfs-image.bb>, changing the ARAGO_QT_PROVIDER_armv7a from qt4-embedded-gles to qt4-embedded and making edits to task-arago-tisdk-graphics.bb<http://task-arago-tisdk-graphics.bb> and task-arago-tisdk-matrix.bb<http://task-arago-tisdk-matrix.bb> to not use packages that rely on opengl-es to run. The image worked as expected on the target hardware for the tests I ran.
I wanted to understand the licenses this build used, so I looked in build/arago-tmp-external-arago-toolchain/deploy/licenses/[my new image name] and saw the license.manifest and package.manifest files. To verify package.manifest, I looked at the packages the target displayed as a result of opkg list and compared the output package.manifest. The opkg list command listed two packages that are not in package.manifest. The other 288 package names match exactly. The same build has 69 more package names in package.manifest than there are in license.manaifest. The other 219 package names match exactly.
I thought I must have done something wrong, so I built base-arago-image from the 05.06.00.00 release and looked at the arago-tmp-external-arago-toolchain/deploy/licenses/arago-base-image-am335x-evm-20130124231158 directory. There are 11 more package names in package.manifest than there are in license.manifest. The other 40 names match exactly.
Am I doing something wrong, or is this expected behavior, or perhaps both? Thanks in advance for the help.
--
Paul Kovitz
--
Paul Kovitz
Lead Embedded Software Engineer
Welch Allyn
8500 SW Creekside Place
Beaverton, OR 97008
503-530-7304 (voice)
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 20916 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: newbie question: license.manifest vs. package.manifest vs. opkg list
2013-01-25 22:33 ` Maupin, Chase
@ 2013-01-25 22:50 ` Denys Dmytriyenko
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Denys Dmytriyenko @ 2013-01-25 22:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Maupin, Chase; +Cc: meta-arago@arago-project.org
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 10:33:29PM +0000, Maupin, Chase wrote:
> Paul,
>
> The license.bbclass which creates these files is making a list of installed
> packages (package.manifest) from the image, and then trying to look in the
> following directory for a file with that name to parse the data from:
>
> ${TMPDIR}/pkgdata/*/runtime -name ${pkg}
>
> However, in that directory for example the libasound2 package information is
> in a file called libasound without the 2. Hence it finds no information and
> doesn’t make an entry. This seems to have something to do with the number
> that is added to the name of the package, but which is not in the name of
> the PACKAGE as it is defined in the PACKAGES variable.
>
> I have not yet been able to track down why this is occuring. I see output
> in the log files like:
>
> log.do_package_write_ipk:Packaged contents of libasound into
> /home/a0271661/projects/yocto-training/build-setup/oe-layersetup/build/arago-tmp-external-arago-toolchain/work/armv7a-vfp-neon-oe-linux-gnueabi/alsa-lib-1.0.25-r1/deploy-ipks/armv7a-vfp-neon/libasound2_1.0.25-r1_armv7a-vfp-neon.ipk
>
> Which indicates that somewhere in the do_package_write_ipk function the
> libasound was changed to libasound2. What is causing me grief is that I
> cannot find where this message is being printed to look at the code around
> it :(
Chase,
It is the expected behavious and is called "Debian Library Packaging Guide"
[1][2] and is handled by the debian.bbclass [3] that is inherited by default
in our Arago/meta-arago distro.
[1] http://www.netfort.gr.jp/~dancer/column/libpkg-guide/libpkg-guide.html#naminglibpkg
[2] http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-sharedlibs.html
[3] http://cgit.openembedded.org/openembedded-core/tree/meta/classes/debian.bbclass
--
Denys
> The kind of good news is that it looks like the core package (like alsa-lib)
> is in the manifest with the license, but I’d still like to resolve this
> mystery.
>
> Sincerely,
> Chase Maupin
> Integration Team Manager
> Linux Core Product Development
> e-mail: chase.maupin@ti.com
> phone: (214) 567-2950
>
> For support:
> Forums - http://community.ti.com/forums/
> Wiki - http://wiki.davincidsp.com/
>
> From: Paul Kovitz [mailto:paul.kovitz@welchallyn.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 11:46 AM
> To: Maupin, Chase
> Cc: meta-arago@arago-project.org
> Subject: Re: [meta-arago] newbie question: license.manifest vs. package.manifest vs. opkg list
>
> Hi Chase. Thanks for the help. For the arago-base-image I generated, the following files are in package.manifest but not in license.manifest:
> libasound2
> libcrypto1.0.0
> libcurl5
> liblzo2-2
> libopkg1
> libssl1.0.0
> libtinfo5
> libusb-0.1-4
> libusb-1.0-0
> libuuid1
> libz1
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 6:59 AM, Maupin, Chase <chase.maupin@ti.com<mailto:chase.maupin@ti.com>> wrote:
> Paul,
>
> Can you give some examples of a package listed in the package.manifest that is not in the license.manifest file?
>
> Sincerely,
> Chase Maupin
> Integration Team Manager
> Linux Core Product Development
> e-mail: chase.maupin@ti.com<mailto:chase.maupin@ti.com>
> phone: (214) 567-2950<tel:%28214%29%20567-2950>
>
> For support:
> Forums - http://community.ti.com/forums/
> Wiki - http://wiki.davincidsp.com/
>
> From: meta-arago-bounces@arago-project.org<mailto:meta-arago-bounces@arago-project.org> [mailto:meta-arago-bounces@arago-project.org<mailto:meta-arago-bounces@arago-project.org>] On Behalf Of Paul Kovitz
> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 7:15 PM
> To: meta-arago@arago-project.org<mailto:meta-arago@arago-project.org>
> Subject: [meta-arago] newbie question: license.manifest vs. package.manifest vs. opkg list
>
> I am using the 05.06.00.00 baseline. I have an image recipe that I created by removing some packages from tisdk-rootfs-image.bb<http://tisdk-rootfs-image.bb>, changing the ARAGO_QT_PROVIDER_armv7a from qt4-embedded-gles to qt4-embedded and making edits to task-arago-tisdk-graphics.bb<http://task-arago-tisdk-graphics.bb> and task-arago-tisdk-matrix.bb<http://task-arago-tisdk-matrix.bb> to not use packages that rely on opengl-es to run. The image worked as expected on the target hardware for the tests I ran.
>
> I wanted to understand the licenses this build used, so I looked in build/arago-tmp-external-arago-toolchain/deploy/licenses/[my new image name] and saw the license.manifest and package.manifest files. To verify package.manifest, I looked at the packages the target displayed as a result of opkg list and compared the output package.manifest. The opkg list command listed two packages that are not in package.manifest. The other 288 package names match exactly. The same build has 69 more package names in package.manifest than there are in license.manaifest. The other 219 package names match exactly.
>
> I thought I must have done something wrong, so I built base-arago-image from the 05.06.00.00 release and looked at the arago-tmp-external-arago-toolchain/deploy/licenses/arago-base-image-am335x-evm-20130124231158 directory. There are 11 more package names in package.manifest than there are in license.manifest. The other 40 names match exactly.
>
> Am I doing something wrong, or is this expected behavior, or perhaps both? Thanks in advance for the help.
>
> --
> Paul Kovitz
>
>
>
>
> --
> Paul Kovitz
> Lead Embedded Software Engineer
> Welch Allyn
> 8500 SW Creekside Place
> Beaverton, OR 97008
> 503-530-7304 (voice)
> _______________________________________________
> meta-arago mailing list
> meta-arago@arago-project.org
> http://arago-project.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/meta-arago
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2013-01-25 22:50 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2013-01-25 1:15 newbie question: license.manifest vs. package.manifest vs. opkg list Paul Kovitz
2013-01-25 14:59 ` Maupin, Chase
2013-01-25 17:46 ` Paul Kovitz
2013-01-25 22:33 ` Maupin, Chase
2013-01-25 22:50 ` Denys Dmytriyenko
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.