Re: Force binary package install
Rudolf J Streif
Thanks, Richard. I was sidetracked by other stuff, hence the
delay. Please see below.
On 6/8/22 8:54 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
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 byCould 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?
That's the objdump on libc.so.6 on the target (aarch64, Honister):
I don't exactly know how the glibc versioning works. I suppose
the API versions are defined by the Version file of the various
However, when I did more analysis on the libraries whose libc versions did not seem to be met, I found out that they were libraries for a different architecture (x86_64) which were not supposed to be included. Now I wonder if the check validates version compatibility only or also checks architecture compatibility. However, if the latter then the error message does not convey that.
-- Rudolf J Streif CEO/CTO ibeeto +1.855.442.3386 x700