From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix, from userid 118) id AE003E00D01; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 00:59:22 -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=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-HAM-Report: * 0.5 RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM RBL: SORBS: sender is a spam source * [209.85.161.180 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] * -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no * trust * [209.85.161.180 listed in list.dnswl.org] * -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] * 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message * 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 mail-yw0-f180.google.com (mail-yw0-f180.google.com [209.85.161.180]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73BE2E00A7D for ; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 00:59:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yw0-f180.google.com with SMTP id t193so132669610ywc.2 for ; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 00:59:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=intel-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=mpHCSKFr61vKwqzmjicNXqWy/XblT22svITLhsgAW20=; b=S9M+S8kTJSUJoeUmK7Spuhiwn5V9Qn4TmvQsvuV9Qulc7YJ/q0g/2UYirSvmWEVQoh jWah5bupvRVGhJLvWJ+Ij+17nRGC7KAbpy7kthJ9o6WZDEDg3kJaehYHKc88LLXzM0iE dekyt181rA761z/QKPdrmiY0qJQaCG97ue6FxZS3A4UyNDT3om8CXpVTp45CUFQxeMpe rWcbDU3lFowcHyinJIxIKfpCoQiRuD8ZWszY7ILa5HNo3i2QLo7GYFyN4sKPGOhFRoxL NTwpdwhX3JKDrYIRdDUpCDirhYt5JKe+JkQjCV67/eaRK02jVaUhU2IkQ81F9EVL7G3Y UZuw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=mpHCSKFr61vKwqzmjicNXqWy/XblT22svITLhsgAW20=; b=EgjuqtngVhAftQAYCGudh+XViMGMqz+3YxFnc9uE3thv+kaCFcgRhKfHAvxa3OzbaW 815uR7iZmokrdfnxbagS9pD1Rq9DcisYKWUOK0vtsvNWKGmJQwyewBqCNATrL2fX7Uq/ SsTxMAKYPfGAnYYopxlHvDUeFOjHmfghY6aLtXvlgf7dlkunoCYbl+PTqhqbmc20/mXq CwvZdcV3BAZoq45P5Bm8NhbRXCbk4+JpsPx1BA6iJ0foXxHbDmQDG6u5kyFCOoHqTqd+ nlgd1DtSWHNEZlZY0ieJtV8scpVQh17q1SUDoaUhnCnGTRMZIQAMXcFYKBIEpMLco9ia l0Rw== X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9Rmx1TGtZmF60iYSmHkwipTROwlbaAaF6A+x5zxpmZ7LkZSX/clcmsY519tLHm66VxceWk6S+u9n8zlqMjUz X-Received: by 10.13.229.69 with SMTP id o66mr1530970ywe.286.1476777558390; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 00:59:18 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.13.206.3 with HTTP; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 00:58:48 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <561533617.145482749.1476713463652.JavaMail.root@spooler3-g27.priv.proxad.net> References: <290444271.145314951.1476711189434.JavaMail.root@spooler3-g27.priv.proxad.net> <561533617.145482749.1476713463652.JavaMail.root@spooler3-g27.priv.proxad.net> From: Jussi Kukkonen Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 10:58:48 +0300 Message-ID: To: "Michel D'HOOGE" Cc: Yocto list discussion 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 07:59:22 -0000 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c189648c7e57f053f1f116a --94eb2c189648c7e57f053f1f116a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On 17 October 2016 at 17:11, Michel D'HOOGE wrote: > Hi, > > From time to time I try to use the debian packages management instead of > RPM because I feel more "at home"... And every time, there is a problem -- > but this time, I felt like I'll try to understand and solve it! > > I tried first with core-image-minimal, and it worked. > But then I switched to core-image-sato and had the following error: > > ERROR : core-image-sato-1.0-r0 do_rootfs: Unable to install packages. > Command '/mnt/Yocto/Fabric-x64/build/tmp/sysroots/x86_64-linux/usr/bin/apt-get > install --force-yes --allow-unauthenticated apt packagegroup-base-extended > packagegroup-core-ssh-dropbear dpkg packagegroup-core-x11-base > packagegroup-core-boot packagegroup-core-x11-sato-games psplash > packagegroup-core-x11-sato' returned 100: > Reading package lists... > Building dependency tree... > Reading state information... > Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have > requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable > distribution that some required packages have not yet been created or been > moved out of Incoming. > The following information may help to resolve the situation: > > The following packages have unmet dependencies: > packagegroup-core-x11-base : Depends: packagegroup-core-x11-utils but it > is not going to be installed > E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages. > 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. Note that you may have to wipe TMPDIR after bblayers changes if you're testing this. I have a bug on improving the X initialization mess in oe-core vs meta-oe ( https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5546) but please file one on the debian packaging issue if it does not exist yet. I checked: The package exists in /tmp/deploy/deb/all/ > packagegroup-core-x11-utils_1.0-r40_all.deb, but it is *empty*. It looks > as if it is just there to create some RDEPENDS in the recipe. > > > So... I played the game to explicitly add packages one by one to the image: > IMAGE_INSTALL_append_pn-core-image-sato = " packagegroup-core-x11-utils > xserver-nodm-init x11-common xserver-common" > But now I have the following error: > The following packages have unmet dependencies: > xserver-common : Conflicts: x11-common but 0.1-r47 is to be installed > > xserver-common RCONFLICTS with x11-common: the package manager is doing exactly what it was asked to do here (you shouldn't install both of those). - Jussi > > So my question is: > Is using debian packages management definitely broken in Yocto? Or has > someone managed to use it with some tweaking? > > > Many thanks for your feedbacks > Michel > -- > _______________________________________________ > yocto mailing list > yocto@yoctoproject.org > https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto > --94eb2c189648c7e57f053f1f116a Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 1= 7 October 2016 at 17:11, Michel D'HOOGE <michel.dhooge@free.fr> wrote:
H= i,

>From time to time I try to use the debian packages management instead of RP= M because I feel more "at home"... And every time, there is a pro= blem -- but this time, I felt like I'll try to understand and solve it!=

I tried first with core-image-minimal, and it worked.
But then I switched to core-image-sato and had the following error:

ERROR : core-image-sato-1.0-r0 do_rootfs: Unable to install packages. Comma= nd '/mnt/Yocto/Fabric-x64/build/tmp/sysroots/x86_64-linux/usr/bin/apt-get install --force-yes --allow-unauthenticated apt packagegroup-b= ase-extended packagegroup-core-ssh-dropbear dpkg packagegroup-core-x11-base= packagegroup-core-boot packagegroup-core-x11-sato-games psplash packa= gegroup-core-x11-sato' returned 100:
Reading package lists...
Building dependency tree...
Reading state information...
Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have requested= an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable distribution that= some required packages have not yet been created or been moved out of Inco= ming.
The following information may help to resolve the situation:

The following packages have unmet dependencies:
packagegroup-core-x11-base : Depends: packagegroup-core-x11-utils but it is= not going to be installed
E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages.
=C2=A0
I suspect this is related to meta-oe taking over s= ome X initialization when you add it to bblayers -- this =C2=A0maybe expose= s a bug in the deb packaging implementation. In any case I can say that a d= eb-based core-image-sato builds fine without meta-oe.

<= div>Note that you may have to wipe TMPDIR after bblayers changes if you'= ;re testing this.


I checked: The package exists in /tmp/deploy/deb/all/packagegroup-core= -x11-utils_1.0-r40_all.deb, but it is *empty*. It looks as if it is ju= st there to create some RDEPENDS in the recipe.


So... I played the game to explicitly add packages one by one to the image:=
IMAGE_INSTALL_append_pn-core-image-sato =3D " packagegroup-core-x= 11-utils xserver-nodm-init x11-common xserver-common"

But now I have the following error:
The following packages have unmet dependencies:
=C2=A0xserver-common : Conflicts: x11-common but 0.1-r47 is to be installed=


xserver-common RCONFLICTS with x1= 1-common: the package manager is doing exactly what it was asked to do here= (you shouldn't install both of those).

= =C2=A0- Jussi




So my question is:
Is using debian packages management definitely broken in Yocto? Or has some= one managed to use it with some tweaking?


Many thanks for your feedbacks
Michel
--
_______________________________________________
yocto mailing list
yocto@yoctoproject.org
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto<= br>

--94eb2c189648c7e57f053f1f116a--