DISTRO_PR, ipkg dependencies, and meta toolchains...

DISTRO_PR, ipkg dependencies, and meta toolchains...

[Mike (mwester)]

Consider the control data for openssl-dev (exerpts):

Package: openssl-dev
Version: 0.9.7g-r7.1
...
Depends: openssl (= 0.9.7g-r7), libcrypto0.9.7, libssl0.9.7
Recommends: libc6-dev, libgcc-dev, libcrypto-dev...

Note in particular the openssl-dev version number, which has the
DISTRO_PR appended to make it "-r7.1" instead of just "-r7".

But in the dependencies, it lists the specific version of the
corresponding runtime -- without the DISTRO_PR.  And of course, that
specific version doesn't exist (or rather, if it exists in someone's
environment, it would be a left-over ipkg from before the DISTRO_PR was
added).

One place this bites us is in the SDK assembling (bitbake
meta-toolchain-<whatever>):

| Collected errors:
|  * ERROR: Cannot satisfy the following dependencies for
task-fso-toolchain-target:
|        *  openssl (= 0.9.7g-r7) *

Poking about I can find a place in the appropriate bbclass files to hack
things up so that my specific problem will be resolved -- but I'd prefer
that someone who understands just how much of the rdepends/rrecommends
needs this treatment offer some advice first.  (And of course, I should
warn anyone who cares that I know Perl far better than Python, a fact
that would almost certainly end up reflected in the patch I would write!)

Mike (mwester)

[RFC] Re: DISTRO_PR, ipkg dependencies, and meta toolchains...

[Mike (mwester)]

Mike (mwester) wrote:

(Replying to my own email, and what's worse -- I'm top-posting!)
(And I changed the subject line to add [RFC] to get your attention.)

I found the problem.  Here's a fix:
--------------------------------------------
diff --git a/classes/package.bbclass b/classes/package.bbclass
index 8db000b..a1cbe61 100644
--- a/classes/package.bbclass
+++ b/classes/package.bbclass
@@ -459,7 +459,7 @@ python populate_packages () {
        for pkg in package_list:
                rdepends = explode_deps(bb.data.getVar('RDEPENDS_' +
pkg, d, 0) or bb.data.getVar('RDEPENDS', d, 0) or "

-               remstr = "${PN} (= ${DEBPV})"
+               remstr = "${PN} (= ${DEBPV}${DISTRO_PR})"
                if main_is_empty and remstr in rdepends:
                        rdepends.remove(remstr)
                for l in dangling_links[pkg]:
--------------------------------------------

This changes the dependencies written into the "-dev" packages so that
they include the DISTRO_PR suffix correctly.

Note that this change will require a full rebuild of every -dev package
in order to correct the dependencies listed therein.

In addition, there are a couple of recipes that use DEBPV directly -- if
nobody  objects, I'll add DISTRO_PR to these as well:

linux-libc-headers/linux-libc-headers.inc
net-snmp/net-snmp_5.4.1.bb

(By-the-way, another solution might be to set DEBPV to include the
DISTRO_PR, but grep was unable to tell me where that variable is set.)

If nobody objects I'll commit this fix.

Mike (mwester)

> Consider the control data for openssl-dev (exerpts):
> 
> Package: openssl-dev
> Version: 0.9.7g-r7.1
> ...
> Depends: openssl (= 0.9.7g-r7), libcrypto0.9.7, libssl0.9.7
> Recommends: libc6-dev, libgcc-dev, libcrypto-dev...
> 
> Note in particular the openssl-dev version number, which has the
> DISTRO_PR appended to make it "-r7.1" instead of just "-r7".
> 
> But in the dependencies, it lists the specific version of the
> corresponding runtime -- without the DISTRO_PR.  And of course, that
> specific version doesn't exist (or rather, if it exists in someone's
> environment, it would be a left-over ipkg from before the DISTRO_PR was
> added).
> 
> One place this bites us is in the SDK assembling (bitbake
> meta-toolchain-<whatever>):
> 
> | Collected errors:
> |  * ERROR: Cannot satisfy the following dependencies for
> task-fso-toolchain-target:
> |        *  openssl (= 0.9.7g-r7) *
> 
> Poking about I can find a place in the appropriate bbclass files to hack
> things up so that my specific problem will be resolved -- but I'd prefer
> that someone who understands just how much of the rdepends/rrecommends
> needs this treatment offer some advice first.  (And of course, I should
> warn anyone who cares that I know Perl far better than Python, a fact
> that would almost certainly end up reflected in the patch I would write!)
> 
> Mike (mwester)
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
> 

Re: [RFC] Re: DISTRO_PR, ipkg dependencies, and meta toolchains...

[Tom Rini]

On Sun, Nov 02, 2008 at 08:19:22PM -0600, Mike (mwester) wrote:
> Mike (mwester) wrote:
> 
> (Replying to my own email, and what's worse -- I'm top-posting!)
> (And I changed the subject line to add [RFC] to get your attention.)
> 
> I found the problem.  Here's a fix:

And this would explain why the problem wasn't seen before, 
<sarcasm>
All of you, me and poky use the SDK stuff
</sarcam>

:)

As the area in question came from me, that looks good to me.  That's
where we remove the dep the -dev package has on the main package, if the
main package doesn't exist.

[snip]
> This changes the dependencies written into the "-dev" packages so that
> they include the DISTRO_PR suffix correctly.

Actually, as I think more, why isn't ${DISTRO_PR} part of ${DEBPV} ?
That seems to be the real bug..

> (By-the-way, another solution might be to set DEBPV to include the
> DISTRO_PR, but grep was unable to tell me where that variable is set.)

... as you suggest.

-- 
Tom Rini

Re: [RFC] Re: DISTRO_PR, ipkg dependencies, and meta toolchains...

[Holger Freyther]

On Monday 03 November 2008 03:19:22 Mike (mwester) wrote:
> Mike (mwester) wrote:
>
> (Replying to my own email, and what's worse -- I'm top-posting!)
> (And I changed the subject line to add [RFC] to get your attention.)
>
> I found the problem.  Here's a fix:

eek, otavios and richard went over it. could you please comment?

z.

Re: [RFC] Re: DISTRO_PR, ipkg dependencies, and meta toolchains...

[Otavio Salvador]

Holger Freyther <zecke@selfish.org> writes:

> On Monday 03 November 2008 03:19:22 Mike (mwester) wrote:
>> Mike (mwester) wrote:
>>
>> (Replying to my own email, and what's worse -- I'm top-posting!)
>> (And I changed the subject line to add [RFC] to get your attention.)
>>
>> I found the problem.  Here's a fix:
>
> eek, otavios and richard went over it. could you please comment?

It is fixed in current GIT and works fine for me since then... 

-- 
        O T A V I O    S A L V A D O R
---------------------------------------------
 E-mail: otavio@debian.org      UIN: 5906116
 GNU/Linux User: 239058     GPG ID: 49A5F855
 Home Page: http://otavio.ossystems.com.br
---------------------------------------------
"Microsoft sells you Windows ... Linux gives
 you the whole house."

Re: [RFC] Re: DISTRO_PR, ipkg dependencies, and meta toolchains...

[Mike (mwester)]

Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Holger Freyther <zecke@selfish.org> writes:
> 
>> On Monday 03 November 2008 03:19:22 Mike (mwester) wrote:
>>> Mike (mwester) wrote:
>>>
>>> (Replying to my own email, and what's worse -- I'm top-posting!)
>>> (And I changed the subject line to add [RFC] to get your attention.)
>>>
>>> I found the problem.  Here's a fix:
>> eek, otavios and richard went over it. could you please comment?
> 
> It is fixed in current GIT and works fine for me since then... 

I'm not sure what you are saying here -- I'm using the GIT tip, and the
patches I posted are required.  It's really quite easy to see -- just do
"ar x something-dev.ipk", extract the control file, and look at the
dependency -- without the patch I posted, the dependency on package
"something" is written with an explicit version number that does not
exist, because it does not have the DISTRO_PR on it.

Mike (mwester)

Re: [RFC] Re: DISTRO_PR, ipkg dependencies, and meta toolchains...

[Otavio Salvador]

"Mike (mwester)" <mwester@dls.net> writes:

> Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> Holger Freyther <zecke@selfish.org> writes:
>> 
>>> On Monday 03 November 2008 03:19:22 Mike (mwester) wrote:
>>>> Mike (mwester) wrote:
>>>>
>>>> (Replying to my own email, and what's worse -- I'm top-posting!)
>>>> (And I changed the subject line to add [RFC] to get your attention.)
>>>>
>>>> I found the problem.  Here's a fix:
>>> eek, otavios and richard went over it. could you please comment?
>> 
>> It is fixed in current GIT and works fine for me since then... 
>
> I'm not sure what you are saying here -- I'm using the GIT tip, and the
> patches I posted are required.  It's really quite easy to see -- just do
> "ar x something-dev.ipk", extract the control file, and look at the
> dependency -- without the patch I posted, the dependency on package
> "something" is written with an explicit version number that does not
> exist, because it does not have the DISTRO_PR on it.

Please test today's tip since I've applied a missing piece of fix. I
guess it will work for you.

-- 
        O T A V I O    S A L V A D O R
---------------------------------------------
 E-mail: otavio@debian.org      UIN: 5906116
 GNU/Linux User: 239058     GPG ID: 49A5F855
 Home Page: http://otavio.ossystems.com.br
---------------------------------------------
"Microsoft sells you Windows ... Linux gives
 you the whole house."