On 9 May 2012 17:49, Mark Hatle <mark.ha...@windriver.com> wrote: > On 5/8/12 9:09 PM, Khem Raj wrote: >> >> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Marko Lindqvist<cazf...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> On 9 May 2012 04:36, Khem Raj<raj.k...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 5:59 PM, Marko Lindqvist<cazf...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You should know that I'm just figuring out what to do with >>>>> "rtld(GNU_HASH)" that already exist for eglibc. When building >>>>> deb-packets based image, that results in: >>>>> "reference to 'rtld': error in version: version number does not start >>>>> with digit" >>>>> >>>>> I've confirmed that error message is caused by this by simply >>>>> removing "(GNU_HASH)" -> eglibc build success >>>> >>>> >>>> yeah this is rpm brain damage actually that we are dealing with here. >>>> I think rpm should be fixed for this. I am not entirely sure why this >>>> would be needed on current OE-Core lets say if its needed it should then >>>> be made specific when someone is using rpm for packaging. >>> >>> >>> I've not yet figured out what all this tries to achieve, but are you >>> saying that it might be acceptable solution for eglibc too to simply >>> remove "(GNU_HASH)" if nobody from rpm world vetoes such patch? >> >> >> yes. We need to find why this PROVIDE is needed at all in current OE > > The per-file "advanced" dependencies, which are not yet being used by ipkg > or deb, include a marker for rtld support. The libc on the system needs to > have a provide that it supports GNU_HASH, otherwise a missing dependency > occurs and the system knows the package and libc has a mismatch. > > IPKG works with this, but apparently DEB does not. We have two solutions > that I see. > > If the format of the RPROVIDE is legal in OE, then the DEB package solution > needs to transform the provide into something that is legal for debian style > packages. > > If the format of the RPROVIDE is illegal in OE (and just happens to work), > then the RPM package manager needs to transform the provide... > > RPM is already doing a number of transforms to change from OE format to RPM > format, I would expect the same behavior from other package managers -- > assuming that the RPROVIDE is legal. > > Who can definitively state what the legal RPROVIDE format is in OE?
If we are to define it now, and selecting from existing alternatives, parenthesis could denote either: deb style) Single version number override. Recipe 1.0.0 can provide some 1.0.1 package. rpm style) General marker (does it even handle multiple ones?) Any use-case relevant to OE I see for deb style handling can be handled with smart use of rpm style, but not the other way around. - ML _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
