Re: [yocto] Force binary package install

From: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Rudolf J Streif <rudolf.streif@ibeeto.com>,
	Chuck Wolber <chuckwolber@gmail.com>
Cc: Alexander Kanavin <alex.kanavin@gmail.com>,
	Yocto <yocto@lists.yoctoproject.org>
Subject: Re: [yocto] Force binary package install
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2022 16:54:26 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <cebb854db8fcf670da63e81dc2e4554e0b051891.camel@linuxfoundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <14b4af80-e9d0-6c0a-0c66-515595e969d0@ibeeto.com>

On Tue, 2022-06-07 at 18:17 -0700, Rudolf J Streif wrote:
> 
> On 6/7/22 4:36 PM, Chuck Wolber wrote:
>  
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > >  
> > > >  
> > > > >  >> Is there an elegant way around it?
> > > > >  >>
> > > > >  >>
> > > > >  >> Error:
> > > > >  >>    Problem: conflicting requests
> > > > >  >>     - nothing provides libdl.so.2 needed by
> > > > >  >> xxx-single-group-0.1-r0.cortexa53_crypto
> > > > >  >>     - nothing provides libdl.so.2(GLIBC_2.0) needed by 
> > > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > Could this be considered a bug in the package_rpm.bbclass? It seems
> > to me that if you skip files-rdeps,
> > we might not want to be adding anything into splitpreinst.
> > Otherwise it seems silly to tell insane.bbclass
> > to skip something that RPM is going to ding you on later anyway. Or
> > maybe I am confused...
> > 
> > In any case, I believe what you may be seeing can be viewed as an
> > RPM-ism, and not necessarily a
> > yocto-ism per se. So you might consider trying one of the following
> > to work around the problem:
> > 
> It's Yocto that creates the spec file for rpm. Apparently, besides
> relying on what is declared in RDEPENDS, it
>  actually iterates over the files and appends the dependencies (and
> their versions). It results in this:
> Requires: libc.so.6
>  Requires: libc.so.6()(64bit)
>  Requires: libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0)
>  Requires: libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1)
>  Requires: libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3)
>  Requires: libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.17)(64bit)
>  Requires: libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2)
>  Requires: libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.28)(64bit)
>  Requires: libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3)
>  Requires: libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)
>  Requires: libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)
>  Requires: libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.7)
> Removing anything but the first two lines would probably do the
> trick. So if file-rdeps is declared in INSANE_SKIP
>  it should simply only use the declared RDEPENDS and not analyze the
> files.
>  

If that works at runtime it makes me wonder if our glibc shouldn't be
providing some of those things? What does our glibc package say it  is
providing? How does that compare to what objdump says?

Cheers,

Richard