| Summary: | [sugarbay] lttng build failure | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Build System, Metadata & Runtime] BSPs | Reporter: | Jessica <jessica.zhang> |
| Component: | bsps-meta-intel | Assignee: | Ross Burton <ross.burton> |
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | QA Contact: | |
| Severity: | normal | ||
| Priority: | Medium | CC: | dvhart, liezhi.yang, richard.purdie, ross.burton, tom.zanussi |
| Version: | 1.3 | ||
| Target Milestone: | 1.3.2 | ||
| Hardware: | x86 | ||
| OS: | Multiple | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| OS type for building Yocto: | --- | Type of Regression: | --- |
| Verified: | Documentation change: | --- | |
Tom, sorry, I can't recall, are you looking at lttng stuff? Or is that Robert (now on CC). I'm not sure how bug assignments are being done these days. In maintainers.inc I see the following for the lttng stuff: RECIPE_MAINTAINER_pn-lttng-modules = "Bogdan Marinescu <bogdan.a.marinescu@intel.com>" RECIPE_MAINTAINER_pn-lttng-tools = "Bogdan Marinescu <bogdan.a.marinescu@intel.com>" RECIPE_MAINTAINER_pn-lttng-ust = "Bogdan Marinescu <bogdan.a.marinescu@intel.com>" I'm not sure how Robert got assigned these bugs, but in any case, this is a build problem, not anything specific to the function of the lttng recipes or packages, and as such, since I'm not the maintainer of either the lttng recipes, or the sugarbay BSP, I don't see myself as the logical choice for this. I'm perfectly happy to take the bug however, if other more qualified people are too busy, but I also have things to do... Duh. Sorry Tom, just super rushed. Thanks! I can't reproduce it on opensuse 12.1 x86_64 ( I didn't add my lttng-ust patch), it would be good if we have the detailed logfile. A dirty and rude fix would be:
diff --git a/meta/recipes-kernel/lttng-2.0/lttng-tools_2.0.4.bb b/meta/recipes-kernel/lttng-2.0/lttng-tools_2.0.4.bb
index 0bafcb3..615656e 100644
--- a/meta/recipes-kernel/lttng-2.0/lttng-tools_2.0.4.bb
+++ b/meta/recipes-kernel/lttng-2.0/lttng-tools_2.0.4.bb
@@ -10,6 +10,7 @@ LIC_FILES_CHKSUM = "file://LICENSE;md5=61273c2e3f60dd38a74b01beb5f51fbd \
file://lgpl-2.1.txt;md5=0f0d71500e6a57fd24d825f33242b9ca"
DEPENDS = "liburcu popt lttng2-ust"
+RDEPENDS_${PN} = "lttng2-ust"
SRCREV = "98c8c95b0e1afb2dac686338efdf036f6446d790"
PV = "v2.0.4"
The problem is why this happens, something related to the sstate cache ?
I think this was a danny failure (Jessica, could you confirm?). I think this is due to two versions of lttng-ust getting built and mixed together which in turn is confusing the shared librbary dependency code and showing up later when the build is from sstate. sstate is just showing the problem, not at fault here. Yes, the failure is against danny The build log is showing both lttng-ust 0.16 and lttng2-ust 2.0.5 being built. There's an existing bug for this, marking as duplicate. |
> > | Generating solve db for > > /srv/home/pokybuild/yocto-autobuilder/yocto-slave/sugarbay/build/build/tmp/deploy/rpm/all... > > | Processing locale-base-en-us... > > | Processing locale-base-en-gb... > > | Processing packagegroup-core-tools-testapps... > > | Processing packagegroup-base-extended... > > | Processing packagegroup-core-basic... > > | Processing packagegroup-core-tools-debug... > > | Processing packagegroup-core-sdk... > > | Processing packagegroup-core-ssh-openssh... > > | Processing psplash... > > | Processing packagegroup-core-lsb... > > | Processing packagegroup-core-standalone-sdk-target... > > | Processing packagegroup-core-tools-profile... > > | Processing packagegroup-core-boot... > > | Processing kernel-dev... > > | error: Failed dependencies: > > | liblttng-ust-ctl.so.0()(64bit) is needed by > > | lttng-tools-v2.0.4-r0.x86_64 > > | ERROR: Function failed: do_rootfs (see > > /srv/home/pokybuild/yocto-autobuilder/yocto-slave/sugarbay/build/bui > > ld > > /tmp/work/sugarbay-poky-linux/core-image-lsb-sdk-1.0-r0/temp/log.do_ > > ro > > otfs.23295 > > for further information) > > ERROR: Task 23 > > (/srv/home/pokybuild/yocto-autobuilder/yocto-slave/sugarbay/build/me > > ta /recipes-extended/images/core-image-lsb-sdk.bb, > > do_rootfs) failed with exit code '1' > > Summary: There was 1 ERROR message shown, returning a non-zero exit code.