[OE-core] [RFC] How to deal allarch packages in dependency chain for multilib rootfs?

[Alexander Kanavin]

Maybe the better thing to do would be to name the packages in the
first place in such a way that openssl is a 32 bit package, and
lib64-openssl is the 64 bit one. Then any noarch package would pull in
the correct version automatically. Is that not possible somehow?

Alex

2018-06-28 13:13 GMT+02:00 Martin Jansa <martin.jansa at gmail.com>:
> In our build I've removed the openssl runtime dependency
> (RDEPENDS_${PN}_remove = "openssl"), because we pull the right version of
> openssl (lib32-openssl in our case) to the image elsewhere.
>
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 10:48 AM Kang Kai <Kai.Kang at windriver.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> When build 32 bits rootfs with 64 bits bsp, if an allarch/noarch package
>> is installed to lib32 rootfs, it causes
>> unexpected 64 bits packages which is required by the allarch package
>> installed to lib32 rootfs.
>>
>> Take ca-certificates as example. ca-certificates rdepends on openssl, so
>> if ca-certificates is installed to image,
>> 64 bits package openssl will be installed too no matter what the rootfs
>> is. But only 32 bits openssl package should
>> be installed to 32 bits rootfs.
>>
>> There are 2 ways to fixed the issue.
>>
>> 1 expand allarch/noarch packages with multilib. So if add ca-certificates
>> to image, lib32-ca-certificates will be
>>    installed to 32bits rootfs. And then also the dependency lib32-openssl
>> is installed. That is what we expected.
>>
>> 2 expand DEPENDS/RDEPENDS of allarch/noarch packages with a prefix
>> 'noarch-' when multilib is enabled. So then
>>    ca-certificates requires 'noarch-openssl'. And make both lib32-openssl
>> and openssl provides 'noarch-openssl'.
>>    When do_rootfs, there is only one rpm repo 'oe-rootfs-repo' now. We
>> will create repos with different priorities
>>    according to different archs/subdirectories. For 32 bits image, make 32
>> bits rpm repo has  higher priority, so lib32-openssl
>>    will be installed to 32 bits rootfs rather than 64bits.
>>
>> I know these 2 ways are not perfect, but only possible ways I have in mind
>> to solve the problem.
>>
>> Any comment or suggestion is greatly appreciated. Thanks a lot.
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Neil | Kai Kang
>>
>> --
>> _______________________________________________
>> Openembedded-core mailing list
>> Openembedded-core at lists.openembedded.org
>> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
>
>
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core at lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
>