[oe] Another weird case of PACKAGES_DYNAMIC and task deps, it seems

[Paul Sokolovsky]

Hello Richard,

Monday, January 7, 2008, 1:47:23 AM, you wrote:

> Hi Paul,

> On Fri, 2008-01-04 at 03:17 +0200, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
>> Hello openembedded-devel,
>> 
>>   Situation (as reported by Thomas Kunze on IRC):
>> 1. Build from scratch
>> 2. Kernel has been built.
>> 3. Bitbake of initramfs-image.
>> 4. Failure with:
>> 
>> | ERROR: Cannot satisfy the following dependencies for initramfs-module-loop:
>> |        update-modules update-modules update-modules
>> | ERROR: Cannot satisfy the following dependencies for initramfs-module-nfs:
>> |        update-modules
>> 
>> initramfs-module-* doesn't Depends: on update-modules directly, but
>> they Suggest: some kernel-module-* which in turn Depends: on
>> update-modules.

> Hmm. Which kernel is this with?

  Thomas wanted to build adhoc bootloading initramfs for Collie, so I
assume he built for it.


>> kernel.bbclass has:
>> 
>> DEPENDS += "virtual/${TARGET_PREFIX}depmod-${@get_kernelmajorversion('${PV}')} virtual/${TARGET_PREFIX}gcc${KERNEL_CCSUFFIX} update-modules"
>> 
>> But as we now know, that doesn't mean there will be package written
>> for update-modules, only that it will be "built".

> Nearly but not quite. rootfs_ipk.bbclass says:

> do_rootfs[recrdeptask] += "do_package_write_ipk"

> This means that every RDEPENDS, RRECOMMENDS and DEPENDS is followed and
> the package_write_ipk for every package found must have run.

> I just did a:

> "bitbake poky-image-minimal -g; cat task-depends.dot | grep update-modules"

> which gave me this list:

> "poky-image-minimal.do_rootfs" -> "update-modules.do_populate_staging"
> "poky-image-minimal.do_rootfs" ->
> "update-modules.do_package_write_ipk"
> "linux.do_package" -> "update-modules.do_package"
> "linux.do_configure" -> "update-modules.do_populate_staging"

> and a load of other dependencies which we aren't interested in. The key
> line is:

> "poky-image-minimal.do_rootfs" ->
> "update-modules.do_package_write_ipk"

> So the question is why doesn't your test case have this (I'm assuming it
> doesn't). My best guess is that the kernel .bb file in question alters
> DEPENDS and that update-modules isn't really in DEPENDS. Which
> kernel .bb file serves the machine in question?

  Gotcha! I tried

 MACHINE=h4000 bitbake initramfs-image -g

and it gives the same matches as you quote below. But

 MACHINE=collie bitbake initramfs-image -g

Gives zero matches for update-modules. I don't try to investigate
further now, as you probably know better about it ;-).

> Cheers,

> Richard





-- 
Best regards,
 Paul                            mailto:pmiscml at gmail.com