[poky] [thud] [PATCH 0/2] opkg and BAD_RECOMMENDATIONS in thud 2.6.2

[Quentin Schulz]

Hi Sean,

On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 10:27:23AM +0200, Sean Nyekjaer wrote:
> 
> 
> On 11/06/2019 16.46, Quentin Schulz wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > I've been hit with a rather unsettling bug when building an image with
> > PACKAGE_CLASSES = "ipk" in Thud 2.6.2.
> > 
> > The error message is the following:
> > ERROR: meh-1.0-r0 do_rootfs: Unable to install packages. Command
> > '/tmp/yocto/temp/work/machine-poky-linux/meh/1.0-r0/recipe-sysroot-native/usr/bin/opkg --volatile-cache -f /tmp/yocto/temp/work/machine-poky-linux/meh/1.0-r0/opkg.conf -t /tmp/yocto/temp/work/machine-poky-linux/meh/1.0-r0/temp/ipktemp/ -o /tmp/yocto/temp/work/machine-poky-linux/meh/1.0-r0/rootfs  --force_postinstall --prefer-arch-to-version   --force-maintainer --force-overwrite install packagegroup-base-extended packagegroup-core-boot plop run-postinsts' returned 2:
> > Collected errors:
> >   * Solver encountered 2 problem(s):
> >   * Problem 1/2:
> >   *   - nothing provides bluez5 needed by plop-1.0-r0.aarch64
> >   *
> >   * Solution 1:
> >   *   - do not ask to install a package providing plop
> > 
> >   * Problem 2/2:
> >   *   - nothing provides bluez5 needed by packagegroup-base-bluetooth-1.0-r83.stream1832prime
> >   *
> >   * Solution 1:
> >   *   - do not ask to install a package providing packagegroup-base-extended
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> After this series was applied to thud, our BAD_RECOMMENDATIONS is included
> in our rootfs :(
> 
> We have in our distro conf:
> BAD_RECOMMENDATIONS_append = " udev-hwdb"
> 
> If I revert this series on current thud HEAD, we are back to what is
> expected :) An image without udev-hwdb
> 

Thanks for letting the community know. I can confirm we're having the
same issue here though I haven't taken the time to check whether it's
because of this series. I believe you though :)

I think there isn't much more than a week left before the last dot
version of thud is out making me say that we should probably revert this
series.

The reasoning is the following:
Situation before the patch series, as explained in the cover letter:
in some specific cases, a few packages in BAD_RECOMMENDATIONS trigger a
build error (see above) but overall the mechanism works.
Situation after the patch series (2.6.3): BAD_RECOMMENDATIONS is not
taken into account at all (but build is working, but not a surprise per
se since BAD_RECOMMENDATIONS was the culprit).

Now it's down to maintainers but I'd advocate for reverting it if we
can't fix it in the meantime because I personnally would rather have the
same buggy behavior (but working BAD_RECOMMENDATIONS in 99% of the time)
from 2.6.0, 2.6.1 and 2.6.2 than having a BAD_RECOMMENDATIONS not
working at all as it is for 2.6.3.

Thanks for reporting.
Sorry for messing up.

Quentin
-- 
StreamUnlimited Engineering GmbH
High Tech Campus Vienna, Gutheil-Schoder-Gasse 10, 1100 Vienna, Austria
Fax: +43 1 667 20 02 4401
quentin.schulz at streamunlimited.com, www.streamunlimited.com