| Summary: | [multilib] no provider for lib64-ossp-uuid/sato-image | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Build System, Metadata & Runtime] OE-Core | Reporter: | Hongna Xu <hongnax.xu> |
| Component: | core | Assignee: | Radu Moisan <radu.moisan> |
| Status: | VERIFIED INVALID | QA Contact: | |
| Severity: | normal | ||
| Priority: | Medium | CC: | jiajun.xu, laurentiu.serban, meta.mr.watcher, meta.watcher, ningx.ma, yilongx.y.sun |
| Version: | 1.3 | ||
| Target Milestone: | 1.3 M3 | ||
| Hardware: | x86 | ||
| OS: | Multiple | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| OS type for building Yocto: | --- | Type of Regression: | --- |
| Verified: | Documentation change: | --- | |
|
Description
Hongna Xu
2012-07-17 04:26:01 UTC
followed the wiki instructions for multilib and then run "MACHINE=qemux86-64 bitbake core-image-sato" - everything went fine, the build finshed succesfully. (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. 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. (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. 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. (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. (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. 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. (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. (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. Setting this to verified |