On Friday 16 October 2015 09:38:56 Carlos Sánchez de La Lama wrote: > Hi Paul, > > >> I have some doubts on how package inclusion in images is determined. For > >> example, when building core-image-base, I would say that both > >> > >> kernel-module-uvesafb > >> kernel-module-input > >> > >> are recommended (through RRECOMENDS in packagegroup-base). > > > > I don't see a reference to kernel-module-uvesafb in packagegroup-base. > > You are right, my bad. I was examining several cases and I used the > wrong one when writing the mail. I should have said > > kernel-module-nls-utf8 (which goes into the image) > kernel-module-input (which does not make it to the image) > > and both appear in RRECOMENDS_packagegroup-base. > > > If you would like to analyse the package dependency tree for an image one > > way > > that works is to use buildhistory: > I checked the buildhistory (nice report, BTW), and I see > > "packagegroup-base" -> "kernel-module-nls-utf8" [style=dotted]; > > but not a trace of kernel-module-input. I do not understand why -input > gets a differnt handling than -nls-utf8. My guess is it gets excluded > somehow, but I have not found why/where.
You definitely have the kernel-module-input package created - right? Because it's an RRECOMMENDS, that package can actually not be produced by the kernel (i.e. because the corresponding config option is 'y' or 'n' instead of 'm'). Another much less likely possibility is that you have BAD_RECOMMENDATIONS set to include kernel-module-input. bitbake -e | grep ^BAD_RECOMMENDATIONS will tell you if that is the case. Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre -- _______________________________________________ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
