2772 2012-07-17 04:26:01 +0000 [multilib] no provider for lib64-ossp-uuid/sato-image 2012-07-31 09:18:15 +0000 1 1 7 Build System, Metadata & Runtime OE-Core core 1.3 x86 Multiple VERIFIED INVALID Medium normal 1.3 M3 1 hongnax.xu radu.moisan jiajun.xu laurentiu.serban meta.mr.watcher meta.watcher ningx.ma yilongx.y.sun --- --- --- oldest_to_newest 23143 0 hongnax.xu 2012-07-17 04:26:01 +0000 tree/branch: poky/master commit: eb0cb7e8234f5d2e5623406e9660be91cf52f65e With latest master, multilib build against sato images could not pass. It reports no provider for ib64-ossp-uuid the log shows: ********** Build Configuration: BB_VERSION = "1.15.2" TARGET_ARCH = "i586" TARGET_OS = "linux" MACHINE = "qemux86" DISTRO = "poky" DISTRO_VERSION = "1.2+snapshot-20120717" TUNE_FEATURES = "m32 i586" TARGET_FPU = "" meta meta-yocto = "master:eb0cb7e8234f5d2e5623406e9660be91cf52f65e" NOTE: Resolving any missing task queue dependencies ERROR: Nothing PROVIDES 'lib64-ossp-uuid' (but virtual:multilib:lib64:/home/build/poky/meta/recipes-devtools/rpm/rpm_5.4.9.bb DEPENDS on or otherwise requires it) NOTE: Runtime target 'lib64-rpm' is unbuildable, removing... Missing or unbuildable dependency chain was: ['lib64-rpm', 'lib64-ossp-uuid'] ERROR: Required build target 'lib64-core-image-sato' has no buildable providers. Missing or unbuildable dependency chain was: ['lib64-core-image-sato', 'lib64-rpm', 'lib64-ossp-uuid'] Summary: There was 1 WARNING message shown. Summary: There were 2 ERROR messages shown, returning a non-zero exit code. *************************** 23311 1 radu.moisan 2012-07-20 09:06:37 +0000 followed the wiki instructions for multilib and then run "MACHINE=qemux86-64 bitbake core-image-sato" - everything went fine, the build finshed succesfully. 23357 2 hongnax.xu 2012-07-23 01:47:05 +0000 (In reply to comment #1) > followed the wiki instructions for multilib and then run "MACHINE=qemux86-64 > bitbake core-image-sato" - everything went fine, the build finshed > succesfully. which wiki do you follow? and if you ready from my error information, you will find that the recipe i run is not core-image-sato but lib64-core-image-sato, before that you should add the lines below to conf/local.con ************* MACHINE = "qemux86-64" require conf/multilib.conf MULTILIBS = "multilib:lib32" DEFAULTTUNE_virtclass-multilib-lib32 = "x86" ************** if you can reproduce it, please reopen it, thanks. 23358 3 radu.moisan 2012-07-23 06:10:18 +0000 I followed the instructions found at Yocto Wiki -> Projects -> Multilib In the future, please add "steps to reproduce", this should be the right way to fill in a bug. I will reexamine this. 23362 4 radu.moisan 2012-07-23 07:41:34 +0000 (In reply to comment #2) > and if you ready from my error information, you > will find that the recipe i run is not core-image-sato but > lib64-core-image-sato, before that you should add the lines below to > conf/local.con > ************* > MACHINE = "qemux86-64" > require conf/multilib.conf > MULTILIBS = "multilib:lib32" > DEFAULTTUNE_virtclass-multilib-lib32 = "x86" > ************** > > if you can reproduce it, please reopen it, thanks. I asked around but could not get a straight answer, what is the difference between "MACHINE=quemux86-64 bitbake core-image-sato" and "MACHINE=quemux86-64 bitbake lib64-core-image-sato". The answer I got so far says they all are the same thing. In my understanding, once you set "MACHINE=quemux86-64" the default would be to build the 64bit libraries. 23363 5 hongnax.xu 2012-07-23 07:57:54 +0000 hi, Moisan you are right, they are the same thing.and i am sorry for the wrong settings in comment 2, my real intention is to build lib64 packages during bitbake qemux86 sato image, so the settings should be: MACHINE = "qemux86" require conf/multilib.conf MULTILIBS = "multilib:lib64" DEFAULTTUNE_virtclass-multilib-lib64 = "x86-64" then build lib64-core-image-sato. 23376 6 radu.moisan 2012-07-23 10:42:03 +0000 (In reply to comment #5) > hi, Moisan > you are right, they are the same thing.and i am sorry for the wrong > settings in comment 2, my real intention is to build lib64 packages during > bitbake qemux86 sato image, so the settings should be: > MACHINE = "qemux86" > require conf/multilib.conf > MULTILIBS = "multilib:lib64" > DEFAULTTUNE_virtclass-multilib-lib64 = "x86-64" > > then build lib64-core-image-sato. what is the point of this? what are you tring to achive with this? It doesn't make musch sense to me. 23501 7 jiajun.xu 2012-07-26 02:43:44 +0000 (In reply to comment #6) > (In reply to comment #5) > hi, Moisan > you are right, they are the same > thing.and i am sorry for the wrong > settings in comment 2, my real > intention is to build lib64 packages during > bitbake qemux86 sato image, so > the settings should be: > MACHINE = "qemux86" > require conf/multilib.conf > > MULTILIBS = "multilib:lib64" > DEFAULTTUNE_virtclass-multilib-lib64 = > "x86-64" > > then build lib64-core-image-sato. what is the point of this? > what are you tring to achive with this? It doesn't make musch sense to me. The case is to test if lib64 packages building could pass against qemux86 MACHINE. Similarly, we will also test lib32 building against qemux86-64. 23561 8 radu.moisan 2012-07-27 08:16:47 +0000 Asked Richard's opinion about this as well as Bogdan's and they agree it does not make much sens what you are tring to achieve with this. Moving this to NEEDINFO for further analisys. 23583 9 jiajun.xu 2012-07-29 12:00:13 +0000 (In reply to comment #8) > Asked Richard's opinion about this as well as Bogdan's and they agree it > does not make much sens what you are tring to achieve with this. Moving this > to NEEDINFO for further analisys. If Richard thinks no need to test such combination, I am OK to close it. Laurentiu, Let's remove all such cases for sato and lsb multilib in future testing. 23639 10 radu.moisan 2012-07-31 09:15:46 +0000 (In reply to comment #9) > (In reply to comment #8) > > Asked Richard's opinion about this as well as Bogdan's and they agree it > > does not make much sens what you are tring to achieve with this. Moving this > > to NEEDINFO for further analisys. > > If Richard thinks no need to test such combination, I am OK to close it. > > Laurentiu, > Let's remove all such cases for sato and lsb multilib in future testing. should be fine, in case there still are doubts, Laurentiu can talk with Richard next week. 23640 11 laurentiu.serban 2012-07-31 09:18:15 +0000 Setting this to verified