From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [212.60.202.196] (helo=mail.kernelconcepts.de) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LdvRn-00069t-1I for Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Mon, 02 Mar 2009 00:51:51 +0100 Received: from [85.181.241.28] (helo=[192.168.178.35]) by mail.kernelconcepts.de with esmtpsa (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Ldvcl-0006CL-0B for Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Mon, 02 Mar 2009 01:03:11 +0100 Message-ID: <49AB1EB0.5090002@kernelconcepts.de> Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 00:48:00 +0100 From: Nils Faerber User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20090105) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.0 Subject: Dependency tracking - or - how to get rid of kexec-tools X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2009 23:51:51 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi! I just found a little bit of a problem and am now looking for the most correct solution to it... I am trying to build x11-image for a mipsel target. I am using the dev-head and angstrom-2009 or DISTRO_VERSION = "2009.X-test-20090301" respectively. The problem is that this constellation includes kexec-tools-static for something just that kexec-tools-1.101 does not support mipsel. As far as I have seen it I will not make use of kexec-tools later on. I just want to build a quite simple X11 image for that device. So I can do two things: 1. Get rid of the dependency so that it will not be built. How can I find out which dependency pulls in kexec-tools? 2. Upgrade kexec-tools to the version that is e.g. in Debian, like kexec-tools_20080324.orig.tar.gz which now include mipsel support. So, what to do now? Even if 2. would be the best way to go I would still be interested how one can trace this kind of dependency - sometimes I would be really interested why certain packages are built. PS: I am planning on submitting this mipsel machine support. What would be the best way? Create a diff against dev-head and post here? Cheers nils faerber -- kernel concepts GbR Tel: +49-271-771091-12 Sieghuetter Hauptweg 48 Fax: +49-271-771091-19 D-57072 Siegen Mob: +49-176-21024535 --