From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix, from userid 118) id 46D92E00AF0; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 00:26:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on yocto-www.yoctoproject.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-HAM-Report: * 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider * (twoerner[at]gmail.com) * -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] * -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's * domain * 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily * valid * -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature * 0.5 RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM RBL: SORBS: sender is a spam source * [209.85.223.172 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] * -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no * trust * [209.85.223.172 listed in list.dnswl.org] Received: from mail-io0-f172.google.com (mail-io0-f172.google.com [209.85.223.172]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31DA4E00AE0 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 00:26:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io0-f172.google.com with SMTP id a103so59321492ioj.1 for ; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 00:26:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:mime-version:content-disposition :user-agent; bh=Yzry7LeD4tkg80OLJzD2o00wRcHshrQrNNyz+YOY/3s=; b=HUAJFoKm75gAnZFDkWUacFSqwYnyp2whINcRgaK8h8UWJaZX9ZEiE6CbyFYjmv8MNU CQE624zN97UkxSy6PyVUA0+Q0HogTahPybNeKP1+bYpVKH2DOR13DQDbJM2q/Y/z3EN8 uvFXOJY2HaiZ1thSTP5Kblnfx2+XaEJB1bed4W0D917lCoiyyX6eMJZLSXGfFO2rejy5 /nZGQ3VApzQgIVxcIIzoDJ/JsGXGj5wUqhv+Da4X9ctZml1UpvR8tHvlBD9sfb4J+mew ZfjYg+Cz22bFh101zPuHo/5gdiJRcH15JW54qCQxKVSvhOjZ+PcG2pU1mRSPOc5813lX +6Ag== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:subject:message-id:mime-version :content-disposition:user-agent; bh=Yzry7LeD4tkg80OLJzD2o00wRcHshrQrNNyz+YOY/3s=; b=eiw6iuSWBFCfhuwKVqk3Pa1er0eVj0zH5tVY8kMvZnzmszCeAAPB3uPQ6vNQcGpswj 74N5axNZH5YVqiJ8Vq68PSDrW2x/fZdQQ4jv7M5lGhqph76r4e5IELYHbBWndMxiHyXC OGpWhz2i5YHkQAJQGUqOCWvQC2MmO8QCy8wfAegXFv/jYQCmy9LUoLXryAVxUmcQoxr6 CmlXq/P+4+KlvPtv4a/QZVA7K0xanG0SIDz5bhYiQbjT3oAzlO3ms5le1I8Wq2jfHsUZ KpDTGf1Y8X106NntDT0qD2ox4B3HJR2QQ0aNrLxOvY0VgNynD8NQM/T2UJuYfXPSxU1o AlQA== X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/6LSodgKQF5mDRuGa0gss2Vn2hTbAebvlKrO7TKoDrd8k19JZYn xwIZW1MdaAUu0DMv+xI= X-Received: by 10.36.90.77 with SMTP id v74mr2151324ita.101.1492673172270; Thu, 20 Apr 2017 00:26:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from linux-uys3 ([108.161.123.115]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d139sm7496672itd.6.2017.04.20.00.26.11 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 20 Apr 2017 00:26:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 03:26:09 -0400 From: Trevor Woerner To: yocto@yoctoproject.org Message-ID: <20170420072609.GB25443@linux-uys3> MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.0 (2016-04-01) Subject: overzealous packagedata X-BeenThere: yocto@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of all things Yocto Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 07:26:52 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline I'm trying to build a certain combination of software for a given SoC. mesa (meta-gl, specifically) provides a libgbm, but if you don't want to use mesa's libgbm you can disable it with a PACKAGECONFIG. I.e. PACKAGECONFIG_remove_pn-mesa-gl = "gbm" It works, and looking at the packages-split I can verify that nothing gets installed for either mesa's libgbm nor libgbm-dev. This particular SoC's BSP, however, provides an SoC-specific libgbm that should be used in place of mesa's. This is easy, set the PREFERRED_PROVIDER, tell mesa you don't want its gbm and everything is good, right? :-( The build fails because the *packagedata* from both mesa-gl and this SoC's specific libgbm collide. The packagedata, I guess, states what *might* be installed. So since both packages might install /usr/lib/libgbm, the build freaks out: ERROR: mesa-gl-2_17.0.2-r0 do_packagedata_setscene: The recipe mesa-gl is trying to install files into a shared area when those files already exist. Those files and their manifest location are: /z/build-master/bbb/build/tmp-glibc/pkgdata/beaglebone/runtime/libgbm-dev (matched in manifest-beaglebone-libgbm.packagedata) /z/build-master/bbb/build/tmp-glibc/pkgdata/beaglebone/runtime/libgbm (matched in manifest-beaglebone-libgbm.packagedata) Please verify which recipe should provide the above files. This is very annoying because, even if hell froze over and somehow both libgbm and mesa-gl installed both of their libgbm packages, there would actually only be one provider since mesa-gl's libgbm package is, in fact, empty. Is there a way to get this to work? I can't not build mesa-gl, because I need some of its parts (virtual/mesa, virtual/libgl) and I can't not use the SoC's libgbm because (I'm guessing) that's what I'm supposed to use.