From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix, from userid 118) id 42060E00D0C; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 05:41:19 -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=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-HAM-Report: * 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider * (michel.dhooge[at]free.fr) * -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, low * trust * [212.27.42.2 listed in list.dnswl.org] * -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] Received: from smtp2-g21.free.fr (smtp2-g21.free.fr [212.27.42.2]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF8EEE00D01 for ; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 05:41:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from spooler3-g27.priv.proxad.net (unknown [172.20.243.239]) by smtp2-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id B50DF2000D2 for ; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 14:41:12 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 14:41:12 +0200 (CEST) From: Michel D'HOOGE To: Yocto list discussion Message-ID: <1132601620.150136748.1476794472685.JavaMail.root@spooler3-g27.priv.proxad.net> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Originating-IP: [89.225.253.195] X-Mailer: Zimbra 7.2.0-GA2598 (ZimbraWebClient - GC53 (Linux)/7.2.0-GA2598) X-Authenticated-User: michel.dhooge@free.fr Subject: Re: Using debian packages management X-BeenThere: yocto@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of all things Yocto Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 12:41:19 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks Jussi, it solved my issue (more explanation below). > From: "Jussi Kukkonen" > I suspect this is related to meta-oe taking over some X > initialization when you add it to bblayers -- this maybe exposes a > bug in the deb packaging implementation. In any case I can say that > a deb-based core-image-sato builds fine without meta-oe. You were right... With the bitbake-layers utility, I checked the "appends" but not the "overlayed" (BTW, -overlaid- would be better!?). And meta-oe provides a version 2.0 of xserver-nodm-init, which triggers some problems with debian. > Note that you may have to wipe TMPDIR after bblayers changes if > you're testing this. I didn't have to. I simply set PREFERRED_VERSION_xserver-nodm-init to "1.0" and I got my image! But this raises another comment: I added the whole meta-oe layer for a single recipe (ttf-dejavu). And I inherited unwanted side effects. So what is the best practice? - to copy/paste the recipe into a dedicated layer? - to modify the conf/layer.conf of meta-oe to include a single folder? > I have a bug on improving the X initialization mess in oe-core vs > meta-oe ( https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D5546 ) > but please file one on the debian packaging issue if it does not > exist yet. I just read your bug report=E2=80=A6 and this problem is quite old. Before it gets corrected in 2.3, it could be helpful to put a note in the different Yocto manuals, to draw attention of newcomers to this rather frequent problem. @Khem Raj: I realized my answer was maybe a bit harsh and I want to apologize. This was just an amused comment that every time I try something described in the manuals, this fails miserably. And every time, I have the feeling that my config is close to the default one. But the goal of Yocto is highly ambitious and it implies knowledge in many Linux fields! Michel