[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Issues building the g-i on PowerPC



Frans Pop wrote:
On Monday 19 November 2007, Attilio Fiandrotti wrote:
to build the images: the problem is that i'm not getting those lines and

Not getting those lines is an error on your side!!!
You should absolutely be able to get those lines. Suggest you work on that a bit more.

I was eventualy able to debug the calls made by the Makefile on my i386 and figure out the correct call to pkg-list for powerpc

util/pkg-list netboot/gtk "" di "2.6" "2.6.22-3-powerpc"

and to get those "pkg-lists:" strings (which, btw, are printed to stderr and not on stdout, and that's the reason why tee'ing the latter only didn't do the trick):

- libgtk-directfb-2.0-0-udeb pulls in libdirectfb-1.0-0-udeb pulls directly (that's ok)

but i also see that

- libgtk-directfb-2.0-0-udeb pulls in libcairo-directfb2-udeb (that's ok)
- libcairo-directfb2-udeb pulls in libdirectfb-0.9-25-udeb (that's not ok)

So, i hand-extracted the control file from inside the libcairo-directfb2-udeb udeb which i personally built against dfb 1.0 and placed inside localudebs, and its actual content is:

Package: libcairo-directfb2-udeb
Source: libcairo
Version: 1.4.10-1
Architecture: powerpc
Maintainer: Dave Beckett <dajobe@debian.org>
Installed-Size: 412
Depends: fontconfig-udeb (>= 2.4.0), libc6 (>= 2.6-1), libdirectfb-1.0-0-udeb, libfreetype6-udeb (>= 2.3
.5), libpng12-0-udeb (>= 1.2.13-4), zlib1g-udeb (>= 1:1.2.3.3.dfsg-1)

as you can see, the udeb correctly depends from libdirectfb-1.0-0-udeb, so i'm wondering where that libdirectfb-0.9-25-udeb dependancy comes from.

that's the reason why i had to remove from the UDEBS variable in the
Makefile the entry about directfb 0.9.25

That's *by far* the ugliest d-i build hack I've ever heard of! You should never have to mess with the Makefile like that.
If you really need to exclude a udeb, you should do it in pkg-lists.

ah, i didn't know such an option existed, now i do, and i agree it's better than hacking the Makefile :)

Attilio



Reply to: