<div dir="ltr">Isn't it enough to set RPROVIDES/RCONFLICTS/RREPLACES combo to say that eudev really replaces old udev even when the package version is lower.<div><br></div><div>This used to fix such upgrade-path issues before, but I've stopped testing them long time ago.</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 5:26 PM, Bryan Evenson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bevenson@melinkcorp.com" target="_blank">bevenson@melinkcorp.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">All,<br>
<div><div class="h5"><br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From: <a href="mailto:openembedded-core-bounces@lists.openembedded.org">openembedded-core-bounces@<wbr>lists.openembedded.org</a><br>
> [mailto:<a href="mailto:openembedded-core-bounces@lists.openembedded.org">openembedded-core-<wbr>bounces@lists.openembedded.org</a><wbr>] On Behalf<br>
> Of Bryan Evenson<br>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 2:01 PM<br>
> To: <a href="mailto:Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org">Openembedded-core@lists.<wbr>openembedded.org</a><br>
> Subject: [OE-core] eudev: opkg not automatically upgrading from udev to<br>
> eudev<br>
><br>
><br>
> I have an image based on core-image-minimal that uses sysvinit for init and<br>
> opkg for package management. I am doing some upgrade testing and I see<br>
> an issue with eudev. I am testing upgrading an image that was built under<br>
> dizzy to my latest image built under morty. I'm first testing that all the correct<br>
> packages and new dependencies are correctly being identified for upgrade<br>
> by running "opkg update; opkg upgrade --download-only" from the<br>
> command line and comparing what is in the opkg cache directory with what<br>
> was available. All packages except eudev and udev-cache are being<br>
> downloaded for upgrade.<br>
><br>
> I ran the opkg upgrade again with the -V4 option for additional debug output<br>
> Here's what I saw in one section regarding udev:<br>
><br>
> pkg_hash_fetch_best_<wbr>installation_candidate: Best installation candidate for<br>
> udev:<br>
> pkg_hash_fetch_best_<wbr>installation_candidate: apkg=udev nprovides=2.<br>
> pkg_hash_fetch_best_<wbr>installation_candidate: Adding eudev to providers.<br>
> pkg_hash_fetch_best_<wbr>installation_candidate: Adding udev to providers.<br>
> pkg_hash_fetch_best_<wbr>installation_candidate: eudev arch=armv5e<br>
> arch_priority=41 version=3.2.<br>
> pkg_hash_fetch_best_<wbr>installation_candidate: udev arch=arm926ejste<br>
> arch_priority=51 version=182.<br>
> pkg_hash_fetch_best_<wbr>installation_candidate: Candidate: udev 182.<br>
> pkg_hash_fetch_best_<wbr>installation_candidate: 2 matching pkgs for<br>
> apkg=udev:<br>
> pkg_hash_fetch_best_<wbr>installation_candidate: eudev 3.2 armv5e<br>
> pkg_hash_fetch_best_<wbr>installation_candidate: udev 182 arm926ejste<br>
> opkg_upgrade_pkg: Comparing visible versions of pkg udev:<br>
> 182-r9.9 is installed<br>
> 182-r9.9 is available<br>
> 0 was comparison result<br>
> opkg_upgrade_pkg: Package udev (182-r9.9) installed in root is up to date.<br>
><br>
> I'm assuming the problem is that udev is version 182 and eudev is version 3.2<br>
> and that opkg doesn't think udev needs to be upgraded. Is there an<br>
> RDEPENDS that needs to be added somewhere so opkg sees that it needs to<br>
> upgrade udev to eudev?<br>
<br>
</div></div>I made some changes and now both eudev and udev-cache are being pulled in on upgrade. However, I'd like a second opinion that what I did was reasonable.<br>
<br>
First, I created eudev_%.bbappend in my private layer and added "PE = "1"" to the bbappend. Since the numbering scheme changed between udev and eudev, I figured this was a reasonable move. This brought the update udev-cache in for upgrade, but not eudev. In my private layer, I also have an image version number package. I added eudev to the RDEPENDS list for this package since my image, which now has linux version 4.4, does depend on eudev.<br>
<br>
Does this sound reasonable? Is there a better way to do the same thing?<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
Bryan<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
><br>
> Thanks,<br>
> Bryan<br>
> --<br>
> ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
> Openembedded-core mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org">Openembedded-core@lists.<wbr>openembedded.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.openembedded.org/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/openembedded-<wbr>core</a><br>
--<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Openembedded-core mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org">Openembedded-core@lists.<wbr>openembedded.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.openembedded.org/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/openembedded-<wbr>core</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>