From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix, from userid 118) id 874C0E009A7; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 08:09:31 -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=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-HAM-Report: * -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, low * trust * [193.201.172.118 listed in list.dnswl.org] * 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider * (picmaster[at]mail.bg) * -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 Received: from mx2.mail.bg (mx2.mail.bg [193.201.172.118]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13657E00992 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 08:09:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.63] (unknown [93.152.143.60]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx2.mail.bg (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8B4E060044B2; Tue, 30 Jun 2015 18:09:28 +0300 (EEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=mail.bg; s=default; t=1435676968; bh=YqJw6qNnzJBl+j06ifBn2jvwmWgDSyW0imWPrDlP8Ew=; h=Message-ID:Date:From:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References: In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=VewQmxQ7b7h+aEjZIVt90uT+veazsQCPOiATXCn4fxl1coVxrsMrBYlScs1DjGpLy FNfmBrHkTMW2zn4o+JZlx7Rrz09hEt1g+F4xLTBFrE1EqIZepZEQ/T63Gz9ZJGD0HF kgJ6lSrI9JkrKPOwVzOcDRhkQSnIMwgNsJyWyDRk= Message-ID: <5592B128.5090606@mail.bg> Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 18:09:28 +0300 From: Nikolay Dimitrov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jean-Michel Hautbois References: <5592A41C.3060803@mlbassoc.com> <5592AA4C.50308@mail.bg> In-Reply-To: Cc: "meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org" , Gary Thomas Subject: Re: Removing gpu-viv-bin-mx6q from custom image X-BeenThere: meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Usage and development list for the meta-fsl-* layers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 15:09:31 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Jean-Michel, On 06/30/2015 05:56 PM, Jean-Michel Hautbois wrote: > Hi all, > > 2015-06-30 16:40 GMT+02:00 Nikolay Dimitrov : >> Hi Jean-Michel, >> >> Are you sure that core-image-base is actually adding the unneeded >> dependency? I don't see gpu-viv-bin-mx6q being built as part of this >> image. > > Well, no, I am not sure, but I must say it is a bit difficult to know > exactly who is adding what... Well, there's a way to tell precisely who's pulling which dependency. This command generates a dependency graph (I think Daiane/Gary already mentioned this): bitbake -g your-custom-image This will create several text files, and one of them is pn-depends.dot, where you can search for dependencies ("->" means "depends on"). Hope this info makes your experience a little bit more scientific and less empirical :D. Also, Daiane mentioned blacklisting the package. I think this could be useful, because when some package pulls-in the blacklisted dependency, bitbake will print the exact dependency route across the graph and will stop with error. > In my machine, I have conf/machine/include/imx-base.inc included, > which could lead to this behaviour... maybe... > >> Can you please check whether some of your added components doesn't >> actually pull-in the gpu-viv-bin-mx6q? Regards, Nikolay