Weird behaviour with PPP

Weird behaviour with PPP

[Mickael Chazaux]

Hi,

I have a hard time figuring out why bitbake seems to mix versions of
ppp... Any ideas?

Regards,

Mickael

mc@ubuntu:~/OE/openembedded/recipes/ppp$ bitbake -b ppp_2.4.5.bb
NOTE: Preparing runqueue
NOTE: Executing runqueue
NOTE: Removing stamps: /home/mc/OE/tmp/stamps/i686-angstrom-linux/ppp-2.4.5-r1.*
NOTE: Running task 1 of 19 (ID: 11,
/home/mc/OE/openembedded/recipes/ppp/ppp_2.4.5.bb, do_setscene)
NOTE: Running task 2 of 19 (ID: 9,
/home/mc/OE/openembedded/recipes/ppp/ppp_2.4.5.bb, do_fetch)
NOTE: Running task 3 of 19 (ID: 0,
/home/mc/OE/openembedded/recipes/ppp/ppp_2.4.5.bb, do_unpack)
NOTE: Running task 4 of 19 (ID: 15,
/home/mc/OE/openembedded/recipes/ppp/ppp_2.4.5.bb,
do_distribute_sources)
NOTE: Unpacking ../../../sources/ppp-2.4.5.tar.gz to
../../../tmp/work/i686-angstrom-linux/ppp-2.4.5-r1/
NOTE: Unpacking files/pon to ../../../tmp/work/i686-angstrom-linux/ppp-2.4.5-r1/
NOTE: Unpacking files/poff to
../../../tmp/work/i686-angstrom-linux/ppp-2.4.5-r1/
NOTE: Unpacking files/init to
../../../tmp/work/i686-angstrom-linux/ppp-2.4.5-r1/
NOTE: Unpacking files/ip-up to
../../../tmp/work/i686-angstrom-linux/ppp-2.4.5-r1/
NOTE: Unpacking files/ip-down to
../../../tmp/work/i686-angstrom-linux/ppp-2.4.5-r1/
NOTE: Unpacking files/08setupdns to
../../../tmp/work/i686-angstrom-linux/ppp-2.4.5-r1/
NOTE: Unpacking files/92removedns to
../../../tmp/work/i686-angstrom-linux/ppp-2.4.5-r1/
NOTE: Running task 5 of 19 (ID: 1,
/home/mc/OE/openembedded/recipes/ppp/ppp_2.4.5.bb, do_patch)
NOTE: Applying patch 'ppp-2.4.4-mppe-mppc.1.1.patch'
(ppp-2.4.5/ppp-2.4.4-mppe-mppc.1.1.patch)
NOTE: Applying patch 'makefile.patch' (ppp-2.4.5/makefile.patch)
NOTE: Applying patch 'cifdefroute.patch' (ppp-2.4.5/cifdefroute.patch)
NOTE: Applying patch 'pppd-resolv-varrun.patch'
(ppp-2.4.5/pppd-resolv-varrun.patch)
NOTE: Applying patch 'enable-ipv6.patch' (ppp-2.4.5/enable-ipv6.patch)
NOTE: Applying patch 'makefile-remove-hard-usr-reference.patch'
(ppp-2.4.5/makefile-remove-hard-usr-reference.patch)
NOTE: Applying patch 'ldflags.patch' (ppp-2.4.5/ldflags.patch)
NOTE: Running task 6 of 19 (ID: 12,
/home/mc/OE/openembedded/recipes/ppp/ppp_2.4.5.bb, do_configure)
NOTE: Running task 7 of 19 (ID: 13,
/home/mc/OE/openembedded/recipes/ppp/ppp_2.4.5.bb, do_qa_configure)
NOTE: Running task 8 of 19 (ID: 14,
/home/mc/OE/openembedded/recipes/ppp/ppp_2.4.5.bb, do_compile)
NOTE: Running task 9 of 19 (ID: 2,
/home/mc/OE/openembedded/recipes/ppp/ppp_2.4.5.bb, do_install)
NOTE: Running task 10 of 19 (ID: 16,
/home/mc/OE/openembedded/recipes/ppp/ppp_2.4.5.bb, do_package)
NOTE: Running task 11 of 19 (ID: 3,
/home/mc/OE/openembedded/recipes/ppp/ppp_2.4.5.bb,
do_populate_sysroot)
cp: cannot create regular file
`/home/mc/OE/tmp/sysroots/i686-angstrom-linux/usr/lib/pppd/2.4.5/pppol2tp.so':
Permission denied
cp: cannot create regular file
`/home/mc/OE/tmp/sysroots/i686-angstrom-linux/usr/lib/pppd/2.4.5/rp-pppoe.so':
Permission denied
cp: cannot create regular file
`/home/mc/OE/tmp/sysroots/i686-angstrom-linux/usr/lib/pppd/2.4.5/pppoatm.so':
Permission denied
cp: cannot create regular file
`/home/mc/OE/tmp/sysroots/i686-angstrom-linux/usr/lib/pppd/2.4.5/openl2tp.so':
Permission denied
cp: cannot create regular file
`/home/mc/OE/tmp/sysroots/i686-angstrom-linux/usr/share/man/man8/pppd.8':
Permission denied
cp: cannot create regular file
`/home/mc/OE/tmp/sysroots/i686-angstrom-linux/usr/share/man/man8/pppstats.8':
Permission denied
cp: cannot create regular file
`/home/mc/OE/tmp/sysroots/i686-angstrom-linux/usr/share/man/man8/pppdump.8':
Permission denied
cp: cannot create regular file
`/home/mc/OE/tmp/sysroots/i686-angstrom-linux/usr/share/man/man8/pppd-radius.8':
Permission denied
cp: cannot create regular file
`/home/mc/OE/tmp/sysroots/i686-angstrom-linux/usr/share/man/man8/pppd-radattr.8':
Permission denied
NOTE: Running task 12 of 19 (ID: 4,
/home/mc/OE/openembedded/recipes/ppp/ppp_2.4.5.bb, do_qa_staging)
NOTE: the following files were installed but not shipped in any package:
NOTE:   /usr/lib/pppd/2.4.5/pppol2tp.so
NOTE:   /usr/lib/pppd/2.4.5/openl2tp.so
NOTE: Running task 13 of 19 (ID: 17,
/home/mc/OE/openembedded/recipes/ppp/ppp_2.4.5.bb,
do_package_write_ipk)
NOTE: Not creating empty archive for ppp-oa-2.4.3-r10.6
NOTE: Not creating empty archive for ppp-oe-2.4.3-r10.6
NOTE: Not creating empty archive for ppp-radius-2.4.3-r10.6
NOTE: Not creating empty archive for ppp-winbind-2.4.3-r10.6
NOTE: Not creating empty archive for ppp-minconn-2.4.3-r10.6
NOTE: Not creating empty archive for ppp-password-2.4.3-r10.6
NOTE: Not creating empty archive for ppp-tools-2.4.3-r10.6
Packaged contents of ppp-dbg into
/home/mc/OE/tmp/deploy/glibc/ipk/i686/ppp-dbg_2.4.3-r10.6_i686.ipk
NOTE: Not creating empty archive for ppp-2.4.3-r10.6
NOTE: Not creating empty archive for ppp-doc-2.4.3-r10.6
Packaged contents of ppp-dev into
/home/mc/OE/tmp/deploy/glibc/ipk/i686/ppp-dev_2.4.3-r10.6_i686.ipk
NOTE: Not creating empty archive for ppp-static-2.4.3-r10.6
NOTE: Not creating empty archive for ppp-locale-2.4.3-r10.6
NOTE: Running task 14 of 19 (ID: 5,
/home/mc/OE/openembedded/recipes/ppp/ppp_2.4.5.bb, do_package_write)
NOTE: Running task 15 of 19 (ID: 6,
/home/mc/OE/openembedded/recipes/ppp/ppp_2.4.5.bb, do_package_stage)
NOTE: Running task 16 of 19 (ID: 7,
/home/mc/OE/openembedded/recipes/ppp/ppp_2.4.5.bb,
do_package_stage_all)
NOTE: Running task 17 of 19 (ID: 10,
/home/mc/OE/openembedded/recipes/ppp/ppp_2.4.5.bb, do_build)
NOTE: Running task 18 of 19 (ID: 18,
/home/mc/OE/openembedded/recipes/ppp/ppp_2.4.5.bb, do_rm_work)
NOTE: Running task 19 of 19 (ID: 8,
/home/mc/OE/openembedded/recipes/ppp/ppp_2.4.5.bb, do_rm_work_all)
NOTE: Tasks Summary: Attempted 19 tasks of which 0 didn't need to be
rerun and 0 failed.

Re: Weird behaviour with PPP

[Eric Benard]

Hi,

On 22/02/2011 18:22, Mickael Chazaux wrote:
> I have a hard time figuring out why bitbake seems to mix versions of
> ppp... Any ideas?
>
strange, which distro, git tag, bitbake version are you using ?

Both bitbake ppp-2.4.5 & bitbake -b openembedded/recipes/ppp/ppp_2.4.5.bb work 
fine here (angstrom 2008.1, armv5 target, bitbake 1.12.0).

Eric

Re: Weird behaviour with PPP

[Andreas Oberritter]

Hi,

On 02/22/2011 06:52 PM, Eric Benard wrote:
> On 22/02/2011 18:22, Mickael Chazaux wrote:
>> I have a hard time figuring out why bitbake seems to mix versions of
>> ppp... Any ideas?
>>
> strange, which distro, git tag, bitbake version are you using ?
> 
> Both bitbake ppp-2.4.5 & bitbake -b
> openembedded/recipes/ppp/ppp_2.4.5.bb work fine here (angstrom 2008.1,
> armv5 target, bitbake 1.12.0).

I don't think this has anything to do with ppp. I faced the same issue
with a local recipe, of which an older version had been built before.
When packaging, the old version was used. A new workdir was created for
the old version during this step and the resulting packages were empty.
No recipe existed for this old version at that time, i.e. PR had already
been increased to 1.0, but 0.0 was used by bitbake.

In the end, I deleted bitbake's cache and all files matching the
package's name to get rid of the annoying problem. I think there were
pstage packages of the old version lying around.

Versions used were bitbake master and oe master of one or two weeks ago
(opendreambox distro / mipsel).

Regards,
Andreas

Re: Weird behaviour with PPP

[Martin Jansa]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1361 bytes --]

On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 07:24:28PM +0100, Andreas Oberritter wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 02/22/2011 06:52 PM, Eric Benard wrote:
> > On 22/02/2011 18:22, Mickael Chazaux wrote:
> >> I have a hard time figuring out why bitbake seems to mix versions of
> >> ppp... Any ideas?
> >>
> > strange, which distro, git tag, bitbake version are you using ?
> > 
> > Both bitbake ppp-2.4.5 & bitbake -b
> > openembedded/recipes/ppp/ppp_2.4.5.bb work fine here (angstrom 2008.1,
> > armv5 target, bitbake 1.12.0).
> 
> I don't think this has anything to do with ppp. I faced the same issue
> with a local recipe, of which an older version had been built before.
> When packaging, the old version was used. A new workdir was created for
> the old version during this step and the resulting packages were empty.
> No recipe existed for this old version at that time, i.e. PR had already
> been increased to 1.0, but 0.0 was used by bitbake.
> 
> In the end, I deleted bitbake's cache and all files matching the
> package's name to get rid of the annoying problem. I think there were
> pstage packages of the old version lying around.

This wrong behavior is quite common ie after changing PACKAGE_ARCH, see:
http://www.mail-archive.com/openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org/msg04280.html

-- 
Martin 'JaMa' Jansa     jabber: Martin.Jansa@gmail.com

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 205 bytes --]

Re: Weird behaviour with PPP

[Mickael Chazaux]

Hi,

2011/2/22 Martin Jansa <martin.jansa@gmail.com>:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 07:24:28PM +0100, Andreas Oberritter wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 02/22/2011 06:52 PM, Eric Benard wrote:
>> > On 22/02/2011 18:22, Mickael Chazaux wrote:
>> >> I have a hard time figuring out why bitbake seems to mix versions of
>> >> ppp... Any ideas?
>> >>
>> > strange, which distro, git tag, bitbake version are you using ?
>> >
>> > Both bitbake ppp-2.4.5 & bitbake -b
>> > openembedded/recipes/ppp/ppp_2.4.5.bb work fine here (angstrom 2008.1,
>> > armv5 target, bitbake 1.12.0).
>>
>> I don't think this has anything to do with ppp. I faced the same issue
>> with a local recipe, of which an older version had been built before.
>> When packaging, the old version was used. A new workdir was created for
>> the old version during this step and the resulting packages were empty.
>> No recipe existed for this old version at that time, i.e. PR had already
>> been increased to 1.0, but 0.0 was used by bitbake.
>>
>> In the end, I deleted bitbake's cache and all files matching the
>> package's name to get rid of the annoying problem. I think there were
>> pstage packages of the old version lying around.
>
> This wrong behavior is quite common ie after changing PACKAGE_ARCH, see:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org/msg04280.html
>
As I often switch architectures (arm, x86) to work on different
boards, should I use a different TMPDIR for each?

Regards,

Mickael

Re: Weird behaviour with PPP

[Aeschbacher, Fabrice]

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: openembedded-devel-bounces@lists.openembedded.org 
> [mailto:openembedded-devel-bounces@lists.openembedded.org] Im 
> Auftrag von Mickael Chazaux
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 23. Februar 2011 10:19
> An: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> Betreff: Re: [oe] Weird behaviour with PPP
> 
> Hi,
> 
> 2011/2/22 Martin Jansa <martin.jansa@gmail.com>:
> > On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 07:24:28PM +0100, Andreas Oberritter wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On 02/22/2011 06:52 PM, Eric Benard wrote:
> >> > On 22/02/2011 18:22, Mickael Chazaux wrote:
> >> >> I have a hard time figuring out why bitbake seems to 
> mix versions of
> >> >> ppp... Any ideas?
> >> >>
> >> > strange, which distro, git tag, bitbake version are you using ?
> >> >
> >> > Both bitbake ppp-2.4.5 & bitbake -b
> >> > openembedded/recipes/ppp/ppp_2.4.5.bb work fine here 
> (angstrom 2008.1,
> >> > armv5 target, bitbake 1.12.0).
> >>
> >> I don't think this has anything to do with ppp. I faced 
> the same issue
> >> with a local recipe, of which an older version had been 
> built before.
> >> When packaging, the old version was used. A new workdir 
> was created for
> >> the old version during this step and the resulting 
> packages were empty.
> >> No recipe existed for this old version at that time, i.e. 
> PR had already
> >> been increased to 1.0, but 0.0 was used by bitbake.
> >>
> >> In the end, I deleted bitbake's cache and all files matching the
> >> package's name to get rid of the annoying problem. I think 
> there were
> >> pstage packages of the old version lying around.
> >
> > This wrong behavior is quite common ie after changing 
> PACKAGE_ARCH, see:
> > 
> http://www.mail-archive.com/openembedded-devel@lists.openembed
> ded.org/msg04280.html
> >
> As I often switch architectures (arm, x86) to work on different
> boards, should I use a different TMPDIR for each?

I am using one different TMPDIR for each MACHINE:
  build/mach1, build/mach2, ...

I still have to find a way to make two different machines with same arch (hence same cross-toolchain) share the same pstage, so that the toolchain does not get built twice

with kind regards,
Fabrice

Re: Weird behaviour with PPP

[Mickael Chazaux]

Hi,

2011/2/23 Aeschbacher, Fabrice <Fabrice.Aeschbacher@siemens.com>:
>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> Von: openembedded-devel-bounces@lists.openembedded.org
>> [mailto:openembedded-devel-bounces@lists.openembedded.org] Im
>> Auftrag von Mickael Chazaux
>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 23. Februar 2011 10:19
>> An: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
>> Betreff: Re: [oe] Weird behaviour with PPP
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> 2011/2/22 Martin Jansa <martin.jansa@gmail.com>:
>> > On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 07:24:28PM +0100, Andreas Oberritter wrote:
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> On 02/22/2011 06:52 PM, Eric Benard wrote:
>> >> > On 22/02/2011 18:22, Mickael Chazaux wrote:
>> >> >> I have a hard time figuring out why bitbake seems to
>> mix versions of
>> >> >> ppp... Any ideas?
>> >> >>
>> >> > strange, which distro, git tag, bitbake version are you using ?
>> >> >
>> >> > Both bitbake ppp-2.4.5 & bitbake -b
>> >> > openembedded/recipes/ppp/ppp_2.4.5.bb work fine here
>> (angstrom 2008.1,
>> >> > armv5 target, bitbake 1.12.0).
>> >>
>> >> I don't think this has anything to do with ppp. I faced
>> the same issue
>> >> with a local recipe, of which an older version had been
>> built before.
>> >> When packaging, the old version was used. A new workdir
>> was created for
>> >> the old version during this step and the resulting
>> packages were empty.
>> >> No recipe existed for this old version at that time, i.e.
>> PR had already
>> >> been increased to 1.0, but 0.0 was used by bitbake.
>> >>
>> >> In the end, I deleted bitbake's cache and all files matching the
>> >> package's name to get rid of the annoying problem. I think
>> there were
>> >> pstage packages of the old version lying around.
>> >
>> > This wrong behavior is quite common ie after changing
>> PACKAGE_ARCH, see:
>> >
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/openembedded-devel@lists.openembed
>> ded.org/msg04280.html
>> >
>> As I often switch architectures (arm, x86) to work on different
>> boards, should I use a different TMPDIR for each?
>
> I am using one different TMPDIR for each MACHINE:
>  build/mach1, build/mach2, ...
>
> I still have to find a way to make two different machines with same arch (hence same cross-toolchain) share the same pstage, so that the toolchain does not get built twice
>

Thanks for all the help. A fresh rebuild in a new TMPDIR builds the
right version of PPP.

Regards,

Mickael

Re: Weird behaviour with PPP

[Martin Jansa]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1934 bytes --]

On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 10:19:05AM +0100, Mickael Chazaux wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> 2011/2/22 Martin Jansa <martin.jansa@gmail.com>:
> > On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 07:24:28PM +0100, Andreas Oberritter wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On 02/22/2011 06:52 PM, Eric Benard wrote:
> >> > On 22/02/2011 18:22, Mickael Chazaux wrote:
> >> >> I have a hard time figuring out why bitbake seems to mix versions of
> >> >> ppp... Any ideas?
> >> >>
> >> > strange, which distro, git tag, bitbake version are you using ?
> >> >
> >> > Both bitbake ppp-2.4.5 & bitbake -b
> >> > openembedded/recipes/ppp/ppp_2.4.5.bb work fine here (angstrom 2008.1,
> >> > armv5 target, bitbake 1.12.0).
> >>
> >> I don't think this has anything to do with ppp. I faced the same issue
> >> with a local recipe, of which an older version had been built before.
> >> When packaging, the old version was used. A new workdir was created for
> >> the old version during this step and the resulting packages were empty.
> >> No recipe existed for this old version at that time, i.e. PR had already
> >> been increased to 1.0, but 0.0 was used by bitbake.
> >>
> >> In the end, I deleted bitbake's cache and all files matching the
> >> package's name to get rid of the annoying problem. I think there were
> >> pstage packages of the old version lying around.
> >
> > This wrong behavior is quite common ie after changing PACKAGE_ARCH, see:
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org/msg04280.html
> >
> As I often switch architectures (arm, x86) to work on different
> boards, should I use a different TMPDIR for each?

That should work fine (multiple machines per TMPDIR), I'm using that too
for armv[457].

What I meant are changes in recipes like
http://git.openembedded.org/cgit.cgi/openembedded/commit/?id=da43f76972fc01aca8e07d2f1a9a242546f8123d

-- 
Martin 'JaMa' Jansa     jabber: Martin.Jansa@gmail.com

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 205 bytes --]

Re: Weird behaviour with PPP

[Andreas Oberritter]

Hi Martin,

On 02/22/2011 09:11 PM, Martin Jansa wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 07:24:28PM +0100, Andreas Oberritter wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 02/22/2011 06:52 PM, Eric Benard wrote:
>>> On 22/02/2011 18:22, Mickael Chazaux wrote:
>>>> I have a hard time figuring out why bitbake seems to mix versions of
>>>> ppp... Any ideas?
>>>>
>>> strange, which distro, git tag, bitbake version are you using ?
>>>
>>> Both bitbake ppp-2.4.5 & bitbake -b
>>> openembedded/recipes/ppp/ppp_2.4.5.bb work fine here (angstrom 2008.1,
>>> armv5 target, bitbake 1.12.0).
>>
>> I don't think this has anything to do with ppp. I faced the same issue
>> with a local recipe, of which an older version had been built before.
>> When packaging, the old version was used. A new workdir was created for
>> the old version during this step and the resulting packages were empty.
>> No recipe existed for this old version at that time, i.e. PR had already
>> been increased to 1.0, but 0.0 was used by bitbake.
>>
>> In the end, I deleted bitbake's cache and all files matching the
>> package's name to get rid of the annoying problem. I think there were
>> pstage packages of the old version lying around.
> 
> This wrong behavior is quite common ie after changing PACKAGE_ARCH, see:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org/msg04280.html

In that thread, if I understood correctly, Richard suggested that
packaged staging could solve the problem. But that doesn't seem to be
the case. Do you know why?

Regards,
Andreas