From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Greylist: delayed 359 seconds by postgrey-1.34 at layers.openembedded.org; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 10:07:27 UTC Received: from retry101.mer-nm.internl.net (vif1-retry101.mer-nm.internl.net [217.149.192.107]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4F63736B6; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 10:07:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp103.mer-nm.internl.net (smtp103.mer-nm.internl.net [217.149.192.139]) by retry101.mer-nm.internl.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E20D34082D; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 12:01:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from amavisd-new (mailscanner04.wrt-nm.internl.net [217.149.192.127]) by smtp103.mer-nm.internl.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6ECC3F5C8; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 12:01:28 +0200 (CEST) X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.899 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.899 tagged_above=-999 required=3.5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.9, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=disabled X-Spam-Languages: en Received: from smtp103.mer-nm.internl.net ([217.149.192.139]) by amavisd-new (mailscanner04.wrt-nm.internl.net [217.149.192.160]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 12:01:28 +0200 (CEST) Received: from TOP-EX01.TOPIC.LOCAL (mail.topic.nl [82.204.13.182]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp103.mer-nm.internl.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 12:01:24 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.80.121] (192.168.80.121) by TOP-EX01.TOPIC.LOCAL (192.168.10.102) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.224.2; Tue, 31 Mar 2015 12:02:25 +0200 Message-ID: <551A7074.1050302@topic.nl> Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 12:01:24 +0200 From: Mike Looijmans User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alejandro del Castillo References: <55119BD5.8060002@topic.nl> <5516A6CB.5070803@topic.nl> In-Reply-To: X-Originating-IP: [192.168.80.121] X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: 9833cda7-5b21-4d34-9a38-8d025ddc3664 X-EXCLAIMER-MD-BIFURCATION-INSTANCE: 0 Cc: openembedded-core-bounces@lists.openembedded.org, openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: Not selecting as installing it would break existing dependencies X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 10:07:30 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =EF=BB=BFOn 30-03-15 21:16, Alejandro del Castillo wrote: > Sounds like you hit an already reported bug: > > https://code.google.com/p/opkg/issues/detail?id=3D142 > > It is currently targeted for the 0.3 release, but I am not sure if Paul i= s > going to be able to get to it on the 0.3 timeframe. Could you add details > to the bug report (how to reproduce steps would be great)? If Paul doesn'= t > get to it on the 0.3 timeframe, I'll take care of it on the next release. It looks a lot like the problem described there, so I think it's a safe bet= to=20 say that they're one and the same. As for steps to reproduce, well, it does that for some packages but not for= =20 others, and I haven't been able to figure out what triggers it. The common= =20 factor appears to be that it usually concerns libraries, i.e. packages that= =20 the user didn't select but where there because of dependencies. If I find a= =20 way to trigger it, i'll add that to the bug description. Kind regards, Mike. > > cheers, > > -Alejandro > > > > > From: Mike Looijmans > To: Alejandro del Castillo , > Cc: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org, > openembedded-core-bounces@lists.openembedded.org > Date: 03/28/2015 08:04 AM > Subject: Re: [OE-core] Not selecting as > installing it would break existing dependencies > > > > On 27-03-15 22:21, Alejandro del Castillo wrote: >> openembedded-core-bounces@lists.openembedded.org wrote on 03/24/2015 >> 12:16:05 PM: >> >>> From: Mike Looijmans >>> To: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org, >>> Date: 03/24/2015 12:16 PM >>> Subject: [OE-core] Not selecting as >>> installing it would break existing dependencies >>> Sent by: openembedded-core-bounces@lists.openembedded.org >>> >>> After upgrading a library to a newer version, for example, something >>> called libdvbsi++ from 0.3.6 to 0.3.7, running opkg upgrade outputs the >>> following cryptic error message: >>> >>> Not selecting libdvbsi++1 0.3.6 as installing it would break existing >>> dependencies. >> >> When opkg runs, it creates a list of all the available packages on the >> configured repos + all the installed packages. During an upgrade, it > goes >> through the process of finding the best upgrade match for each installed >> package, searching on the master list. The process goes through a series >> of checks for each candidate, like making sure the archs are compatible, >> and making sure installing a candidate won't break existing installed >> packages. In your case, opkg determines there are 2 candidates, >> libdvbsi++0.3.6 and libdvbsi++0.3.7. While evaluating libdvbsi++0.3.6, > the >> pkg_breaks_reverse_dep check fails, triggering the message shown above >> (and removing the candidate). >> >>> Adding "-V2" to opkg upgrade expands that with the following message: >>> >>> opkg_prepare_upgrade_pkg: Package libdvbsi++1 (0.3.7-r2.0) installed in >>> root is up to date. >>> >>> So apparently it knows about the later version, so why complain about >>> the old one? >> >> The function that returns the best candidate match correctly returns >> libdvbsi++1 0.3.7. It then compares it against what's already installed. >> The DEBUG message above shows that the best candidate found is already >> installed on the system. >> >> >>> There is only one package that (r)depends on that lib (enigma2). > Nothing >> >>> else needs it. >>> >>> This often happens with other packages as well. Is this a bug in opkg, >>> or is it trying to tell us we're doing something wrong? >> >> It is not a bug, the message is harmless as it is only pointing to the >> reason why one of the possible upgrade candidates was discarded. > > But why does this message keep coming back, even months after the > upgrade that installed 0.3.7? > The 0.3.6 version is no longer installed, it is no longer in the feeds, > but opkg still keeps whining about it. A bit of searching in the > filesystem of the box reveals that it is only named in a file named > "/var/lib/opkg/status", which contains the following lines: > > Package: libdvbsi++1 > Version: 0.3.7-r2.0 > Depends: libgcc1 (>=3D 4.9.1), libstdc++6 (>=3D 4.9.1), libc6 (>=3D 2.20) > Provides: libdvbsi++ > Status: unknown ok installed > Architecture: mips32el > Installed-Time: 1427216569 > Auto-Installed: yes > > Package: libdvbsi++1 > Version: 0.3.6-r1.2 > Depends: libgcc1 (>=3D 4.9.1), libstdc++6 (>=3D 4.9.1), libc6 (>=3D 2.20) > Provides: libdvbsi++ > Status: install ok not-installed > Architecture: mips32el > Installed-Time: 1423323784 > Auto-Installed: yes > > > As you can see, 0.3.6 is mentioned here as "not-installed", but opkg > keeps reporting about it. Removing the entry from the file works around > the problem, but I would have expected opkg to remove the entry after > upgrading it. Why didn't opkg remove the obsolete entry? > > >> Hope this helps! > > It helps to know that the message is harmless. > > Kind regards, Mike Looijmans System Expert TOPIC Embedded Products Eindhovenseweg 32-C, NL-5683 KH Best Postbus 440, NL-5680 AK Best Telefoon: +31 (0) 499 33 69 79 Telefax: +31 (0) 499 33 69 70 E-mail: mike.looijmans@topicproducts.com Website: www.topicproducts.com Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail