complex versioning scenario

DISCUSSION Steffen Sledz 5 participants 18 messages Mar 24, 2014 – Apr 8, 2014

lore

Share & tools

lore

Steffen Sledz

author

2014-03-24 12:16 UTC #0 lore raw

We've a complex versioning scenario here which leads me to my limits. :(

There are two recipes. One for a shared library and one for an application using this library.

Both use GNU autotools (so they have internal version information). For continuous integration purposes both use AUTOREV.

At the moment the recipes look like this:

------------ libfoo_git.bb -------------
PR = "r7"
PE = "2"
SRCREV="${AUTOREV}"
PV = "gitr${SRCPV}"
...

------------ app_git.bb ---------------- DEPENDS = "... libfoo ..."
PR = "r10"
PE = "1"
SRCREV="${AUTOREV}"
PV = "gitr${SRCPV}"
...

Now we have the following problem. libfoo has some incompatible changes in its interface (a new internal major version).

In my opinion this should find its represenation in the package versioning in a way that the dependency checker can guarantee that the library and the application package match each other.

But how?

Regards,
Steffen

Signature · 7 lines

DResearch Fahrzeugelektronik GmbH
Otto-Schmirgal-Str. 3, 10319 Berlin, Germany
Tel: +49 30 515932-237 mailto:[email protected]
Fax: +49 30 515932-299
Geschäftsführer: Dr. Michael Weber, Werner Mögle;
Amtsgericht Berlin Charlottenburg; HRB 130120 B;
Ust.-IDNr. DE273952058

Richard Purdie

2014-03-24 12:35 UTC #1 lore raw

Quoted 26 lines · Steffen Sledz

We've a complex versioning scenario here which leads me to my limits. :(
There are two recipes. One for a shared library and one for an application using this library.
Both use GNU autotools (so they have internal version information). For continuous integration purposes both use AUTOREV.
At the moment the recipes look like this:
------------ libfoo_git.bb -------------
PR = "r7"
PE = "2"
SRCREV="${AUTOREV}"
PV = "gitr${SRCPV}"
...
------------ app_git.bb ----------------
DEPENDS = "... libfoo ..."
PR = "r10"
PE = "1"
SRCREV="${AUTOREV}"
PV = "gitr${SRCPV}"
...

Quoted 6 lines

Now we have the following problem. libfoo has some incompatible changes in its interface (a new internal major version).
In my opinion this should find its represenation in the package versioning in a way that the dependency checker can guarantee that the library and the application package match each other.

It is generally impossible to directly compare two git hashes and decide whether one is "greater" than the other. This is why most git recipes have PV = "0.0+git${SRCPV}" so that you can change 0.0 when something major changes. That way you can put a constraint in the second recipe.

This is a fundamental problem with git versioning and not something we can fix generically.

Cheers,

Richard

Steffen Sledz

author

2014-03-24 12:49 UTC #2 lore raw

Quoted 34 lines · Richard Purdie

Quoted 26 lines · Steffen Sledz
We've a complex versioning scenario here which leads me to my limits. :(
There are two recipes. One for a shared library and one for an application using this library.
Both use GNU autotools (so they have internal version information). For continuous integration purposes both use AUTOREV.
At the moment the recipes look like this:
------------ libfoo_git.bb -------------
PR = "r7"
PE = "2"
SRCREV="${AUTOREV}"
PV = "gitr${SRCPV}"
...
------------ app_git.bb ----------------
DEPENDS = "... libfoo ..."
PR = "r10"
PE = "1"
SRCREV="${AUTOREV}"
PV = "gitr${SRCPV}"
...
Quoted 6 lines
Now we have the following problem. libfoo has some incompatible changes in its interface (a new internal major version).
In my opinion this should find its represenation in the package versioning in a way that the dependency checker can guarantee that the library and the application package match each other.

Quoted 7 lines

It is generally impossible to directly compare two git hashes and decide whether one is "greater" than the other. This is why most git recipes have PV = "0.0+git${SRCPV}" so that you can change 0.0 when something major changes. That way you can put a constraint in the second recipe.
This is a fundamental problem with git versioning and not something we can fix generically.

To have an order in the git based versions we use the PRSERV method. This works well.

But this does not help here. The change in the library interface leads directly to a new version of the library package itself (e.g. from libfoo0_gitr100+somehash to libfoo0_gitr101+someotherhash). But i need something i can write into the DEPENDS list of the application. :(

Steffen

BTW: Where comes the 0 in libfoo0 from?

Signature · 7 lines

DResearch Fahrzeugelektronik GmbH
Otto-Schmirgal-Str. 3, 10319 Berlin, Germany
Tel: +49 30 515932-237 mailto:[email protected]
Fax: +49 30 515932-299
Geschäftsführer: Dr. Michael Weber, Werner Mögle;
Amtsgericht Berlin Charlottenburg; HRB 130120 B;
Ust.-IDNr. DE273952058

Richard Purdie

2014-03-24 12:53 UTC #3 lore raw

Quoted 45 lines · Steffen Sledz

Quoted 34 lines · Richard Purdie
Quoted 26 lines · Steffen Sledz
We've a complex versioning scenario here which leads me to my limits. :(
There are two recipes. One for a shared library and one for an application using this library.
Both use GNU autotools (so they have internal version information). For continuous integration purposes both use AUTOREV.
At the moment the recipes look like this:
------------ libfoo_git.bb -------------
PR = "r7"
PE = "2"
SRCREV="${AUTOREV}"
PV = "gitr${SRCPV}"
...
------------ app_git.bb ----------------
DEPENDS = "... libfoo ..."
PR = "r10"
PE = "1"
SRCREV="${AUTOREV}"
PV = "gitr${SRCPV}"
...
Quoted 6 lines
Now we have the following problem. libfoo has some incompatible changes in its interface (a new internal major version).
In my opinion this should find its represenation in the package versioning in a way that the dependency checker can guarantee that the library and the application package match each other.
Quoted 7 lines
It is generally impossible to directly compare two git hashes and decide whether one is "greater" than the other. This is why most git recipes have PV = "0.0+git${SRCPV}" so that you can change 0.0 when something major changes. That way you can put a constraint in the second recipe.
This is a fundamental problem with git versioning and not something we can fix generically.
To have an order in the git based versions we use the PRSERV method. This works well.

Quoted 8 lines

But this does not help here. The change in the library interface leads directly to a new version of the library package itself (e.g. from libfoo0_gitr100+somehash to libfoo0_gitr101+someotherhash). But i need something i can write into the DEPENDS list of the application. :(
Steffen
BTW: Where comes the 0 in libfoo0 from?

debian.bbclass (debian package naming) which I believe in turn is derived from the actual library version.

Its a class specific implementation so you can't depend on it in version information though.

I still think your only solution here is to inject a real version into PV...

Cheers,

Richard

Steffen Sledz

author

2014-03-24 14:22 UTC #4 lore raw

Quoted 53 lines · Richard Purdie

Quoted 52 lines · Steffen Sledz
Quoted 34 lines · Richard Purdie
Quoted 26 lines · Steffen Sledz
We've a complex versioning scenario here which leads me to my limits. :(
There are two recipes. One for a shared library and one for an application using this library.
Both use GNU autotools (so they have internal version information). For continuous integration purposes both use AUTOREV.
At the moment the recipes look like this:
------------ libfoo_git.bb -------------
PR = "r7"
PE = "2"
SRCREV="${AUTOREV}"
PV = "gitr${SRCPV}"
...
------------ app_git.bb ----------------
DEPENDS = "... libfoo ..."
PR = "r10"
PE = "1"
SRCREV="${AUTOREV}"
PV = "gitr${SRCPV}"
...
Quoted 6 lines
Now we have the following problem. libfoo has some incompatible changes in its interface (a new internal major version).
In my opinion this should find its represenation in the package versioning in a way that the dependency checker can guarantee that the library and the application package match each other.
Quoted 7 lines
It is generally impossible to directly compare two git hashes and decide whether one is "greater" than the other. This is why most git recipes have PV = "0.0+git${SRCPV}" so that you can change 0.0 when something major changes. That way you can put a constraint in the second recipe.
This is a fundamental problem with git versioning and not something we can fix generically.
To have an order in the git based versions we use the PRSERV method. This works well.
But this does not help here. The change in the library interface leads directly to a new version of the library package itself (e.g. from libfoo0_gitr100+somehash to libfoo0_gitr101+someotherhash). But i need something i can write into the DEPENDS list of the application. :(
Steffen

Quoted 7 lines

Quoted 1 line
BTW: Where comes the 0 in libfoo0 from?
debian.bbclass (debian package naming) which I believe in turn is derived from the actual library version.
Its a class specific implementation so you can't depend on it in version information though.

But where does it come from? A bb variable?

Quoted 2 lines

I still think your only solution here is to inject a real version into PV...

I tried this:

change libfoo recipe to PV = "1.0+gitr${SRCPV}" leads to libfoo0_1.0+gitr102+someotherhash....ipk

then

change app recipe to DEPENDS = "... libfoo-1.0 ..." leads to: "ERROR: Nothing PROVIDES 'libfoo-1.0'" :(

change app recipe to DEPENDS = "... libfoo0-1.0 ..." leads to: "ERROR: Nothing PROVIDES 'libfoo0-1.0'" :(

change app recipe to DEPENDS = "... libfoo0_1.0 ..." leads to: "ERROR: Nothing PROVIDES 'libfoo0_1.0'" :(

Where's the mistake?

Signature · 7 lines

DResearch Fahrzeugelektronik GmbH
Otto-Schmirgal-Str. 3, 10319 Berlin, Germany
Tel: +49 30 515932-237 mailto:[email protected]
Fax: +49 30 515932-299
Geschäftsführer: Dr. Michael Weber, Werner Mögle;
Amtsgericht Berlin Charlottenburg; HRB 130120 B;
Ust.-IDNr. DE273952058

Richard Purdie

2014-03-24 15:08 UTC #5 lore raw

Quoted 11 lines · Steffen Sledz

Quoted 8 lines · Richard Purdie
Quoted 2 lines · Steffen Sledz
Quoted 1 line · Richard Purdie
On Mon, 2014-03-24 at 13:16 +0100, Steffen Sledz wrote:
debian.bbclass (debian package naming) which I believe in turn is derived from the actual library version.
Its a class specific implementation so you can't depend on it in version information though.
But where does it come from? A bb variable?

Read debian.bbclass. It does objdump -p and looks at the SONAME in the output.

Quoted 14 lines

Quoted 3 lines
I still think your only solution here is to inject a real version into PV...
I tried this:
change libfoo recipe to PV = "1.0+gitr${SRCPV}" leads to libfoo0_1.0+gitr102+someotherhash....ipk
then
change app recipe to DEPENDS = "... libfoo-1.0 ..." leads to: "ERROR: Nothing PROVIDES 'libfoo-1.0'" :(

Quoted 7 lines

change app recipe to DEPENDS = "... libfoo0-1.0 ..." leads to: "ERROR: Nothing PROVIDES 'libfoo0-1.0'" :(
change app recipe to DEPENDS = "... libfoo0_1.0 ..." leads to: "ERROR: Nothing PROVIDES 'libfoo0_1.0'" :(
Where's the mistake?

You'd need to do RDEPENDS_xxxx = "libfoo (>=1.0)"

Cheers,

Richard

Martin Jansa

2014-03-24 15:15 UTC #6 lore raw

In reply to Steffen Sledz

Quoted 56 lines · Steffen Sledz

Quoted 55 lines · Richard Purdie
Quoted 53 lines · Steffen Sledz
Quoted 34 lines · Richard Purdie
Quoted 26 lines · Steffen Sledz
We've a complex versioning scenario here which leads me to my limits. :(
There are two recipes. One for a shared library and one for an application using this library.
Both use GNU autotools (so they have internal version information). For continuous integration purposes both use AUTOREV.
At the moment the recipes look like this:
------------ libfoo_git.bb -------------
PR = "r7"
PE = "2"
SRCREV="${AUTOREV}"
PV = "gitr${SRCPV}"
...
------------ app_git.bb ----------------
DEPENDS = "... libfoo ..."
PR = "r10"
PE = "1"
SRCREV="${AUTOREV}"
PV = "gitr${SRCPV}"
...
Quoted 6 lines
Now we have the following problem. libfoo has some incompatible changes in its interface (a new internal major version).
In my opinion this should find its represenation in the package versioning in a way that the dependency checker can guarantee that the library and the application package match each other.
Quoted 7 lines
It is generally impossible to directly compare two git hashes and decide whether one is "greater" than the other. This is why most git recipes have PV = "0.0+git${SRCPV}" so that you can change 0.0 when something major changes. That way you can put a constraint in the second recipe.
This is a fundamental problem with git versioning and not something we can fix generically.
To have an order in the git based versions we use the PRSERV method. This works well.
But this does not help here. The change in the library interface leads directly to a new version of the library package itself (e.g. from libfoo0_gitr100+somehash to libfoo0_gitr101+someotherhash). But i need something i can write into the DEPENDS list of the application. :(
Steffen
BTW: Where comes the 0 in libfoo0 from?

Quoted 7 lines

Quoted 5 lines
debian.bbclass (debian package naming) which I believe in turn is derived from the actual library version.
Its a class specific implementation so you can't depend on it in version information though.
But where does it come from? A bb variable?

SONAME header in library

so if you're using debian.bbclass and change ABI then you should just increase major version in SONAME (that way your foo will rdepend on libfoo0 until it's rebuilt against newer libfoo1).

Quoted 13 lines

Quoted 2 lines
I still think your only solution here is to inject a real version into PV...
I tried this:
change libfoo recipe to PV = "1.0+gitr${SRCPV}" leads to libfoo0_1.0+gitr102+someotherhash....ipk
then
change app recipe to DEPENDS = "... libfoo-1.0 ..." leads to: "ERROR: Nothing PROVIDES 'libfoo-1.0'" :(

Quoted 7 lines

change app recipe to DEPENDS = "... libfoo0-1.0 ..." leads to: "ERROR: Nothing PROVIDES 'libfoo0-1.0'" :(
change app recipe to DEPENDS = "... libfoo0_1.0 ..." leads to: "ERROR: Nothing PROVIDES 'libfoo0_1.0'" :(
Where's the mistake?

it provides only the full P libfoo-1.0+gitr102+someotherhash so you would need to add own PROVIDES value in libfoo.

Signature · 1 line

Martin 'JaMa' Jansa     jabber: [email protected]

Khem Raj

2014-03-24 18:00 UTC #17 lore raw

In reply to Steffen Sledz

Quoted 26 lines · Steffen Sledz

We've a complex versioning scenario here which leads me to my limits. :(
There are two recipes. One for a shared library and one for an application using this library.
Both use GNU autotools (so they have internal version information). For continuous integration purposes both use AUTOREV.
At the moment the recipes look like this:
------------ libfoo_git.bb -------------
PR = "r7"
PE = "2"
SRCREV="${AUTOREV}"
PV = "gitr${SRCPV}"
...
------------ app_git.bb ---------------- DEPENDS = "... libfoo ..."
PR = "r10"
PE = "1"
SRCREV="${AUTOREV}"
PV = "gitr${SRCPV}"
...

Quoted 2 lines

Now we have the following problem. libfoo has some incompatible changes in its interface (a new internal major version).

This is the key question here. what is this new interface doing, is it breaking any API ?
if not then why bother if it does then use gnu versioning scheme and create versioned symbols
for this interface and you can simplify the problem outside the build system and your library
remains compatible with older app too.

Quoted 20 lines

In my opinion this should find its represenation in the package versioning in a way that the dependency checker can guarantee that the library and the application package match each other.
But how?
Regards,
Steffen
--
DResearch Fahrzeugelektronik GmbH Otto-Schmirgal-Str. 3, 10319 Berlin, Germany
Tel: +49 30 515932-237 mailto:[email protected]
Fax: +49 30 515932-299
Geschäftsführer: Dr. Michael Weber, Werner Mögle; Amtsgericht Berlin Charlottenburg; HRB 130120 B; Ust.-IDNr. DE273952058
--
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected]
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core

Steffen Sledz

author

2014-03-25 10:31 UTC #7 lore raw

In reply to Martin Jansa

Quoted 38 lines · Martin Jansa

Quoted 37 lines · Steffen Sledz
Quoted 36 lines · Richard Purdie
Quoted 25 lines · Steffen Sledz
Quoted 16 lines · Richard Purdie
Quoted 15 lines · Steffen Sledz
We've a complex versioning scenario here which leads me to my limits. :(
There are two recipes. One for a shared library and one for an application using this library.
Both use GNU autotools (so they have internal version information). For continuous integration purposes both use AUTOREV.
At the moment the recipes look like this:
------------ libfoo_git.bb ------------- PR = "r7" PE = "2" SRCREV="${AUTOREV}" PV = "gitr${SRCPV}" ...
------------ app_git.bb ---------------- DEPENDS = "... libfoo ..." PR = "r10" PE = "1" SRCREV="${AUTOREV}" PV = "gitr${SRCPV}" ...
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Now we have the following problem. libfoo has some incompatible changes in its interface (a new internal major version).
In my opinion this should find its represenation in the package versioning in a way that the dependency checker can guarantee that the library and the application package match each other.
It is generally impossible to directly compare two git hashes and decide whether one is "greater" than the other. This is why most git recipes have PV = "0.0+git${SRCPV}" so that you can change 0.0 when something major changes. That way you can put a constraint in the second recipe.
This is a fundamental problem with git versioning and not something we can fix generically.
Quoted 7 lines
To have an order in the git based versions we use the PRSERV method. This works well.
But this does not help here. The change in the library interface leads directly to a new version of the library package itself (e.g. from libfoo0_gitr100+somehash to libfoo0_gitr101+someotherhash). But i need something i can write into the DEPENDS list of the application. :(
Steffen
BTW: Where comes the 0 in libfoo0 from?
debian.bbclass (debian package naming) which I believe in turn is derived from the actual library version.

Quoted 7 lines

Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 1 line
Its a class specific implementation so you can't depend on it in version information though.
But where does it come from? A bb variable?
SONAME header in library
so if you're using debian.bbclass and change ABI then you should just increase major version in SONAME (that way your foo will rdepend on libfoo0 until it's rebuilt against newer libfoo1).

Thanx, this was the decisive hint.

I've increased the version in the SONAME header of the library and the result is a libfoo1 package. :)

But now i hit the next problem. The following rootfs stage results in this error:

---------------> snip <-----------------

| Collected errors:
|  * satisfy_dependencies_for: Cannot satisfy the following dependencies for app:
|  *    libfoo0 (>= gitr101+somehash) *

---------------> snap <-----------------

Should the new build of libfoo1 trigger a new compile of all packages with DEPENDS containing libfoo?

Signature · 7 lines

DResearch Fahrzeugelektronik GmbH
Otto-Schmirgal-Str. 3, 10319 Berlin, Germany
Tel: +49 30 515932-237 mailto:[email protected]
Fax: +49 30 515932-299
Geschäftsführer: Dr. Michael Weber, Werner Mögle;
Amtsgericht Berlin Charlottenburg; HRB 130120 B;
Ust.-IDNr. DE273952058

Richard Purdie

2014-03-25 10:40 UTC #8 lore raw

Quoted 7 lines · Steffen Sledz

On 24.03.2014 16:15, Martin Jansa wrote:
Thanx, this was the decisive hint.
I've increased the version in the SONAME header of the library and the result is a libfoo1 package. :)
But now i hit the next problem. The following rootfs stage results in this error:

Quoted 7 lines

---------------> snip <-----------------
| Collected errors:
|  * satisfy_dependencies_for: Cannot satisfy the following dependencies for app:
|  *    libfoo0 (>= gitr101+somehash) *
---------------> snap <-----------------
Should the new build of libfoo1 trigger a new compile of all packages with DEPENDS containing libfoo?

In theory, yes and in practise, bitbake does actually do this. Unfortunately autotools sometimes do not rebuild things when it should. This is why I've been promoting the B != S patch set which forces things to rebuild in scenarios like this and removes the issue from autotools and lets us handle it ourselves.

So my recommendation would be to opt in to that include file and this should help errors like this.

The change I'd love to commit is:

http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/commit/?h=rpurdie/t2&id=aedf7d207190f18466e82cbc9b3d49b19b3f376f

but I think its now too late to do this by default in 1.6.

Cheers,

Richard

Mark Hatle

2014-03-25 15:03 UTC #9 lore raw

In reply to Steffen Sledz

Quoted 53 lines · Steffen Sledz

Quoted 38 lines · Martin Jansa
Quoted 37 lines · Steffen Sledz
Quoted 36 lines · Richard Purdie
Quoted 25 lines · Steffen Sledz
Quoted 16 lines · Richard Purdie
Quoted 15 lines · Steffen Sledz
We've a complex versioning scenario here which leads me to my limits. :(
There are two recipes. One for a shared library and one for an application using this library.
Both use GNU autotools (so they have internal version information). For continuous integration purposes both use AUTOREV.
At the moment the recipes look like this:
------------ libfoo_git.bb ------------- PR = "r7" PE = "2" SRCREV="${AUTOREV}" PV = "gitr${SRCPV}" ...
------------ app_git.bb ---------------- DEPENDS = "... libfoo ..." PR = "r10" PE = "1" SRCREV="${AUTOREV}" PV = "gitr${SRCPV}" ...
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Now we have the following problem. libfoo has some incompatible changes in its interface (a new internal major version).
In my opinion this should find its represenation in the package versioning in a way that the dependency checker can guarantee that the library and the application package match each other.
It is generally impossible to directly compare two git hashes and decide whether one is "greater" than the other. This is why most git recipes have PV = "0.0+git${SRCPV}" so that you can change 0.0 when something major changes. That way you can put a constraint in the second recipe.
This is a fundamental problem with git versioning and not something we can fix generically.
Quoted 7 lines
To have an order in the git based versions we use the PRSERV method. This works well.
But this does not help here. The change in the library interface leads directly to a new version of the library package itself (e.g. from libfoo0_gitr100+somehash to libfoo0_gitr101+someotherhash). But i need something i can write into the DEPENDS list of the application. :(
Steffen
BTW: Where comes the 0 in libfoo0 from?
debian.bbclass (debian package naming) which I believe in turn is derived from the actual library version.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 1 line
Its a class specific implementation so you can't depend on it in version information though.
But where does it come from? A bb variable?
SONAME header in library
so if you're using debian.bbclass and change ABI then you should just increase major version in SONAME (that way your foo will rdepend on libfoo0 until it's rebuilt against newer libfoo1).
Thanx, this was the decisive hint.
I've increased the version in the SONAME header of the library and the result is a libfoo1 package. :)
But now i hit the next problem. The following rootfs stage results in this error:

Quoted 8 lines

---------------> snip <-----------------
| Collected errors:
|  * satisfy_dependencies_for: Cannot satisfy the following dependencies for app:
|  *    libfoo0 (>= gitr101+somehash) *
---------------> snap <-----------------
Should the new build of libfoo1 trigger a new compile of all packages with DEPENDS containing libfoo?

If the package 'requiring libfoo' has a DEPENDS += ... in it.. then yes, it should have been rebuilt when the libfoo was rebuilt.

--Mark

Steffen Sledz

author

2014-04-07 12:37 UTC #10 lore raw

Quoted 60 lines · Mark Hatle

Quoted 59 lines · Steffen Sledz
Quoted 38 lines · Martin Jansa
Quoted 37 lines · Steffen Sledz
Quoted 36 lines · Richard Purdie
Quoted 25 lines · Steffen Sledz
Quoted 16 lines · Richard Purdie
Quoted 15 lines · Steffen Sledz
We've a complex versioning scenario here which leads me to my limits. :(
There are two recipes. One for a shared library and one for an application using this library.
Both use GNU autotools (so they have internal version information). For continuous integration purposes both use AUTOREV.
At the moment the recipes look like this:
------------ libfoo_git.bb ------------- PR = "r7" PE = "2" SRCREV="${AUTOREV}" PV = "gitr${SRCPV}" ...
------------ app_git.bb ---------------- DEPENDS = "... libfoo ..." PR = "r10" PE = "1" SRCREV="${AUTOREV}" PV = "gitr${SRCPV}" ...
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Now we have the following problem. libfoo has some incompatible changes in its interface (a new internal major version).
In my opinion this should find its represenation in the package versioning in a way that the dependency checker can guarantee that the library and the application package match each other.
It is generally impossible to directly compare two git hashes and decide whether one is "greater" than the other. This is why most git recipes have PV = "0.0+git${SRCPV}" so that you can change 0.0 when something major changes. That way you can put a constraint in the second recipe.
This is a fundamental problem with git versioning and not something we can fix generically.
Quoted 7 lines
To have an order in the git based versions we use the PRSERV method. This works well.
But this does not help here. The change in the library interface leads directly to a new version of the library package itself (e.g. from libfoo0_gitr100+somehash to libfoo0_gitr101+someotherhash). But i need something i can write into the DEPENDS list of the application. :(
Steffen
BTW: Where comes the 0 in libfoo0 from?
debian.bbclass (debian package naming) which I believe in turn is derived from the actual library version.
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 1 line
Its a class specific implementation so you can't depend on it in version information though.
But where does it come from? A bb variable?
SONAME header in library
so if you're using debian.bbclass and change ABI then you should just increase major version in SONAME (that way your foo will rdepend on libfoo0 until it's rebuilt against newer libfoo1).
Thanx, this was the decisive hint.
I've increased the version in the SONAME header of the library and the result is a libfoo1 package. :)
But now i hit the next problem. The following rootfs stage results in this error:
---------------> snip <-----------------
| Collected errors:
|  * satisfy_dependencies_for: Cannot satisfy the following dependencies for app:
|  *    libfoo0 (>= gitr101+somehash) *
---------------> snap <-----------------

Quoted 4 lines

Quoted 2 lines
Should the new build of libfoo1 trigger a new compile of all packages with DEPENDS containing libfoo?
If the package 'requiring libfoo' has a DEPENDS += ... in it.. then yes, it should have been rebuilt when the libfoo was rebuilt.

Unfortunately i can't confirm that. :(

part of the real app recipe:
------------> snip <-------------
DEPENDS = "vala-native libdrtrace libdrhip libdrbcc jansson" RDEPENDS_${PN} = "dropmodes"
------------> snap <-------------

part of the real resulting opkg control file for this app:
------------> snip <-------------
Depends: dropmodes, libglib-2.0-0 (>= 2.36.4), libdrhip1 (>= gitr27+42af787eb2), libjansson4 (>= 2.4), libc6 (>= 2.18) ------------> snap <-------------

I miss the runtime dependencies for libdrtrace and libdrbcc. Where are they gone?

Signature · 7 lines

DResearch Fahrzeugelektronik GmbH
Otto-Schmirgal-Str. 3, 10319 Berlin, Germany
Tel: +49 30 515932-237 mailto:[email protected]
Fax: +49 30 515932-299
Geschäftsführer: Dr. Michael Weber, Werner Mögle;
Amtsgericht Berlin Charlottenburg; HRB 130120 B;
Ust.-IDNr. DE273952058

Steffen Sledz

author

2014-04-07 13:22 UTC #11 lore raw

Quoted 12 lines · Steffen Sledz

Quoted 2 lines · Mark Hatle
...
If the package 'requiring libfoo' has a DEPENDS += ... in it.. then yes, it should have been rebuilt when the libfoo was rebuilt.
Unfortunately i can't confirm that. :(
part of the real app recipe:
------------> snip <-------------
DEPENDS = "vala-native libdrtrace libdrhip libdrbcc jansson" RDEPENDS_${PN} = "dropmodes"
------------> snap <-------------

Quoted 6 lines

part of the real resulting opkg control file for this app:
------------> snip <-------------
Depends: dropmodes, libglib-2.0-0 (>= 2.36.4), libdrhip1 (>= gitr27+42af787eb2), libjansson4 (>= 2.4), libc6 (>= 2.18) ------------> snap <-------------
I miss the runtime dependencies for libdrtrace and libdrbcc. Where are they gone?

Some additional info:
------------> snip <-------------

# objdump -p ./package/usr/lib/libdrhip.so.1.0.0

./package/usr/lib/libdrhip.so.1.0.0: file format elf32-littlearm
...
Dynamic Section:
NEEDED libc.so.6
SONAME libdrhip.so.1
...

# objdump -p ./package/usr/lib/libdrbcc.so.1.0.0

./package/usr/lib/libdrbcc.so.1.0.0: file format elf32-littlearm
...
Dynamic Section:

  NEEDED               libdrtrace.so.0
  NEEDED               libm.so.6
  NEEDED               libreadline.so.6
  NEEDED               libpthread.so.0
  NEEDED               libc.so.6
  SONAME               libdrbcc.so.1

...

# objdump -p ./package/usr/bin/drbccproxy

./package/usr/bin/drbccproxy: file format elf32-littlearm
...
Dynamic Section:

  NEEDED               libdrhip.so.1
  NEEDED               libdrbcc.so.0
  NEEDED               libdrtrace.so.0
  NEEDED               libgio-2.0.so.0
  NEEDED               libgobject-2.0.so.0
  NEEDED               libglib-2.0.so.0
  NEEDED               libjansson.so.4
  NEEDED               librt.so.1
  NEEDED               libpthread.so.0
  NEEDED               libc.so.6

...
------------> snap <-------------

So it seems the data objdump shows are OK.

E.g. the app drbccproxy really has a dependency to a libdrbcc. But this is not refelected in the control file.

Signature · 7 lines

DResearch Fahrzeugelektronik GmbH
Otto-Schmirgal-Str. 3, 10319 Berlin, Germany
Tel: +49 30 515932-237 mailto:[email protected]
Fax: +49 30 515932-299
Geschäftsführer: Dr. Michael Weber, Werner Mögle;
Amtsgericht Berlin Charlottenburg; HRB 130120 B;
Ust.-IDNr. DE273952058

Richard Purdie

2014-04-07 14:49 UTC #12 lore raw

Quoted 59 lines · Steffen Sledz

Quoted 12 lines · Steffen Sledz
Quoted 2 lines · Mark Hatle
...
If the package 'requiring libfoo' has a DEPENDS += ... in it.. then yes, it should have been rebuilt when the libfoo was rebuilt.
Unfortunately i can't confirm that. :(
part of the real app recipe:
------------> snip <-------------
DEPENDS = "vala-native libdrtrace libdrhip libdrbcc jansson" RDEPENDS_${PN} = "dropmodes"
------------> snap <-------------
Quoted 6 lines
part of the real resulting opkg control file for this app:
------------> snip <-------------
Depends: dropmodes, libglib-2.0-0 (>= 2.36.4), libdrhip1 (>= gitr27+42af787eb2), libjansson4 (>= 2.4), libc6 (>= 2.18) ------------> snap <-------------
I miss the runtime dependencies for libdrtrace and libdrbcc. Where are they gone?
Some additional info:
------------> snip <-------------
# objdump -p ./package/usr/lib/libdrhip.so.1.0.0
./package/usr/lib/libdrhip.so.1.0.0: file format elf32-littlearm
...
Dynamic Section:
NEEDED libc.so.6
SONAME libdrhip.so.1
...
# objdump -p ./package/usr/lib/libdrbcc.so.1.0.0
./package/usr/lib/libdrbcc.so.1.0.0: file format elf32-littlearm
...
Dynamic Section:
  NEEDED               libdrtrace.so.0
  NEEDED               libm.so.6
  NEEDED               libreadline.so.6
  NEEDED               libpthread.so.0
  NEEDED               libc.so.6
  SONAME               libdrbcc.so.1
...
# objdump -p ./package/usr/bin/drbccproxy
./package/usr/bin/drbccproxy: file format elf32-littlearm
...
Dynamic Section:
  NEEDED               libdrhip.so.1
  NEEDED               libdrbcc.so.0
  NEEDED               libdrtrace.so.0
  NEEDED               libgio-2.0.so.0
  NEEDED               libgobject-2.0.so.0
  NEEDED               libglib-2.0.so.0
  NEEDED               libjansson.so.4
  NEEDED               librt.so.1
  NEEDED               libpthread.so.0
  NEEDED               libc.so.6

Quoted 6 lines

...
------------> snap <-------------
So it seems the data objdump shows are OK.
E.g. the app drbccproxy really has a dependency to a libdrbcc. But this is not refelected in the control file.

At this point you'll probably have to look at the shlibs code in package.bbclass and see why its not picking up the shlib dependencies correctly for the packages...

It does appear there is some problem there but its hard to saw what without a test case to reproduce.

Cheers,

Richard

Steffen Sledz

author

2014-04-08 12:33 UTC #13 lore raw

Quoted 65 lines · Richard Purdie

Quoted 64 lines · Steffen Sledz
Quoted 12 lines · Steffen Sledz
Quoted 2 lines · Mark Hatle
...
If the package 'requiring libfoo' has a DEPENDS += ... in it.. then yes, it should have been rebuilt when the libfoo was rebuilt.
Unfortunately i can't confirm that. :(
part of the real app recipe:
------------> snip <-------------
DEPENDS = "vala-native libdrtrace libdrhip libdrbcc jansson" RDEPENDS_${PN} = "dropmodes"
------------> snap <-------------
Quoted 6 lines
part of the real resulting opkg control file for this app:
------------> snip <-------------
Depends: dropmodes, libglib-2.0-0 (>= 2.36.4), libdrhip1 (>= gitr27+42af787eb2), libjansson4 (>= 2.4), libc6 (>= 2.18) ------------> snap <-------------
I miss the runtime dependencies for libdrtrace and libdrbcc. Where are they gone?
Some additional info:
------------> snip <-------------
# objdump -p ./package/usr/lib/libdrhip.so.1.0.0
./package/usr/lib/libdrhip.so.1.0.0: file format elf32-littlearm
...
Dynamic Section:
NEEDED libc.so.6
SONAME libdrhip.so.1
...
# objdump -p ./package/usr/lib/libdrbcc.so.1.0.0
./package/usr/lib/libdrbcc.so.1.0.0: file format elf32-littlearm
...
Dynamic Section:
  NEEDED               libdrtrace.so.0
  NEEDED               libm.so.6
  NEEDED               libreadline.so.6
  NEEDED               libpthread.so.0
  NEEDED               libc.so.6
  SONAME               libdrbcc.so.1
...
# objdump -p ./package/usr/bin/drbccproxy
./package/usr/bin/drbccproxy: file format elf32-littlearm
...
Dynamic Section:
  NEEDED               libdrhip.so.1
  NEEDED               libdrbcc.so.0
  NEEDED               libdrtrace.so.0
  NEEDED               libgio-2.0.so.0
  NEEDED               libgobject-2.0.so.0
  NEEDED               libglib-2.0.so.0
  NEEDED               libjansson.so.4
  NEEDED               librt.so.1
  NEEDED               libpthread.so.0
  NEEDED               libc.so.6
...
------------> snap <-------------
So it seems the data objdump shows are OK.

Quoted 8 lines

Quoted 1 line
E.g. the app drbccproxy really has a dependency to a libdrbcc. But this is not refelected in the control file.
At this point you'll probably have to look at the shlibs code in package.bbclass and see why its not picking up the shlib dependencies correctly for the packages...
It does appear there is some problem there but its hard to saw what without a test case to reproduce.

I could isolate the problem. :)

If a package contains a shared library *and* a binary (e.g. a related command line tool) then the soname major version *is not appended* to the package name (see debian_package_name_hook in debian.bbclass). All other problems are aftereffects.

Is this an intended behaviour? There should be a big fat warning if this is the case.

Or is it a bug?

Signature · 7 lines

DResearch Fahrzeugelektronik GmbH
Otto-Schmirgal-Str. 3, 10319 Berlin, Germany
Tel: +49 30 515932-237 mailto:[email protected]
Fax: +49 30 515932-299
Geschäftsführer: Dr. Michael Weber, Werner Mögle;
Amtsgericht Berlin Charlottenburg; HRB 130120 B;
Ust.-IDNr. DE273952058

Khem Raj

2014-04-08 17:21 UTC #14 lore raw

Quoted 1 line · Steffen Sledz

If a package contains a shared library *and* a binary (e.g. a related command line tool) then the soname major version *is not appended* to the package name (see debian_package_name_hook in debian.bbclass). All other problems are aftereffects.

shared objects which are to be used by other independent packages ( public .so) should be packaged separately into runtime shared object package which is separate from packages with binaries so that multiple versions of same librararies
can be packaged on single system, your usecase seems to indicate that the .so is just used by this given binary you bundle together is that the case ?

Steffen Sledz

author

2014-04-08 18:58 UTC #15 lore raw

Am 08.04.2014 19:20, schrieb Khem Raj:

Quoted 10 lines · Steffen Sledz

Quoted 1 line
If a package contains a shared library *and* a binary (e.g. a related command line tool) then the soname major version *is not appended* to the package name (see debian_package_name_hook in debian.bbclass). All other problems are aftereffects.
shared objects which are to be used by other independent packages ( public .so) should be packaged separately into runtime shared object package which is separate from packages with binaries so that multiple versions of same librararies
can be packaged on single system, your usecase seems to indicate that the .so is just used by this given binary you bundle together is that the case ?

No it is used by the binary which is part of the package *and* some other binaries.

So i've to split the package into two packages of which one contains only the shared object. Right?

Signature · 7 lines

DResearch Fahrzeugelektronik GmbH
Otto-Schmirgal-Str. 3, 10319 Berlin, Germany
Tel: +49 30 515932-237 mailto:[email protected]
Fax: +49 30 515932-299
Geschäftsführer: Dr. Michael Weber, Werner Mögle;
Amtsgericht Berlin Charlottenburg; HRB 130120 B;
Ust.-IDNr. DE273952058

Khem Raj

2014-04-08 21:32 UTC #16 lore raw

Quoted 3 lines · Steffen Sledz

Am 08.04.2014 19:20, schrieb Khem Raj:
Quoted 1 line
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 5:33 AM, Steffen Sledz <[email protected]>

Quoted 1 line · wrote:

Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
If a package contains a shared library *and* a binary (e.g. a related

command line tool) then the soname major version *is not appended* to the package name (see debian_package_name_hook in debian.bbclass). All other problems are aftereffects.

Quoted 10 lines

Quoted 8 lines
shared objects which are to be used by other independent packages ( public .so) should be packaged separately into runtime shared object package which is separate from packages with binaries so that multiple versions of same librararies
can be packaged on single system, your usecase seems to indicate that the .so is just used by this given binary you bundle together is that the case ?
No it is used by the binary which is part of the package *and* some other

binaries.

Quoted 2 lines

So i've to split the package into two packages of which one contains only

the shared object. Right?
yes

Quoted 9 lines

--
DResearch Fahrzeugelektronik GmbH Otto-Schmirgal-Str. 3, 10319 Berlin, Germany
Tel: +49 30 515932-237 mailto:[email protected]
Fax: +49 30 515932-299
Geschäftsführer: Dr. Michael Weber, Werner Mögle; Amtsgericht Berlin Charlottenburg; HRB 130120 B; Ust.-IDNr. DE273952058