I was trying to build a Yocto Image for intel processor.
I downloaded the latest source code of poky and then clone the meta-intel branch and added it to bblayers.conf file.
git clone git://git.yoctoproject.org/meta-intel
MACHINE = "intel-core2-32"
I started build with the following command
bitbake core-image-sato
And got the following error:
configure: error: Package requirements (libva >= 1.1.0) were not met:
|
| Requested 'libva >= 1.1.0' but version of libva is 0.40.0
|
| Consider adjusting the PKG_CONFIG_PATH environment variable if you
| installed software in a non-standard prefix.
|
I have the following recipe in this folder meta/recipes-graphics/libva/libva_1.8.3.bb
It means the version should be 1.8.3 instead of 0.4.0
The version of libva that configure is looking for (in some recipe you didn't name) is the API version. This is not necessarily the same as the package version. libva is one of the examples where package/recipe version and API version are not too related.
libva 1.x provides API version 0.y . Yes, it's weird.
Your real problem is here:
I downloaded the latest source code of poky and then clone the
meta-intel branch
meta-intel is not a branch, it's a layer and git repo. If you did not specifically change the branch of that git repo, you are using master. This is typically not compatible with release versions of poky.
If you want to keep using the poky release you've downloaded, you must checkout the matching release branch/tag in meta-intel.
This is not required to fix your issue but I would suggest using git to get all of your layers, poky included. That way it's easy to pick the branches you want (and the method to do that is the same for all layers) and also easier to upgrade when e.g. there's a bug fix release to poky...
Related
I have freetype2 installed on my system but I am also trying to install it from source, as well.
My installed version is here: /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/freetype2.pc. That file is listed as version 20.0.14.
To compile another tool, namely fontconfig, I need freetype2 >= 21.0.15.
So I downloaded freetype2 from its source git repo.
The trouble I'm having is that repository doesn't list any version even close to 21.0.15+. All of the tags in that repository are listed as VER-2-6-2, VER-2-9, VER-2-9-1, etc. And the generated freetype.pc file which is created after compilation are also listed as 2.6.2, 2.9, 2.9.1, etc. The version number is not 21.0.15 or even 20.0.14, which my CentOS 7.6 already has.
What determines the listed version in the freetype.pc file? Where can I find the version of freetype that will create a .pc file of >= 21.0.15+? Any clarification would be greatly appreciated.
Apparently the reason is because I was building freetype using CMake. And in the CMakeLists.txt, it's defining a version based on the version of freetype.
# . `CMakeLists.txt' is provided as-is since it is normally not used by the
# developer team.
So it's unsupported. That's why the version number doesn't match.
In reality, the version number actually comes from libtool. See this table. e.g. I was building 2.10.0 freetype, so the freetype.pc should have been written with a version of 23.0.17
And if you build using configure, instead of cmake, you can find that exact same version 23.0.17 listed as "23:0:17" in the builds/unix/configure.raw file.
I'm attempting to migrate from a GitLab 7.1.0 (Source) installation (on Centos6) to latest omnibus (on Centos7) using these instructions:
https://docs.gitlab.com/omnibus/update/README.html#upgrading-from-non-omnibus-postgresql-to-an-omnibus-installation-using-a-backup
Essentially it boils down to:
Set up a new machine,
Install the omnibus version on the new machine that matches your source version,
Do an "backup" from the source version,
Restore that backup into the omnibus version,
update the omnibus version to latest.
I'm stuck on #2. I've added the GitLab repo, but the oldest version of the "gitlab-ce" package available is 7.10.0. Also they're named weirdly, e.g. "7.10.0~omnibus-1", "7.10.0~omnibus.1-1", etc. instead of simply "7.13.0-ce.0.el7".
What are my options? If I install 7.13.0 Omnibus from the repo then try to restore a backup from 7.1.0 into it, should I expect that to work? Will I lose data?
Is there a 7.1.0 omnibus RPM available somewhere?
If the new machine needs to be Centos6 in order to install a 7.1.0 omnibus package then I can reimage.
If you look in the official RPM repo it looks like 7.10 is the oldest version of the omnibus available for CentOS.
I think your best option is to perform the source upgrade outlined in 6.x-or-7.x-to-7.14.md which should let you upgrade to v7.14. Then you can resume the normal "upgrade source installation to omnibus installation" method you found.
Also, in case it's helpful, the docs repo has incremental source upgrade procedures for many more versions.
What are the steps in building Sourcekit and Sourcekitten for the stable release version of Swift 3.0? Thanks in advance.
Note: Dependencies and other tools for building are already installed as per https://github.com/apple/swift
This is duplicate to Building Swift SourceKit on Linux
Updated Nov.24, 2016.
Build Sourcekit
The official branch of swift may still have the issue https://bugs.swift.org/browse/SR-1676. But Norio Nomura maintained a docker building environment here https://github.com/norio-nomura/docker-sourcekit-builder/
If you don't want to build it yourself, just download the package with sourcekit https://github.com/norio-nomura/docker-sourcekit-builder/releases
You may have to put libsourcekitdInProc.so under lib directory of this package into your lib path, or the lib directory into your LD_LIBRARY_PATH
Build SourceKitten
SourceKitten has Linux support now. Download the git source code and use swift build.
Requirement is to download software from Centos 5.4. When I do yum install , I get the latest version and not the one available for Centos 5.4.
How do I configure yum to download only from 5.4 repo?
As I said in my answer to your other question you need to find a repository that has a maintained, static entry for 5.4.
Most repositories have just one repository for each major version and upgrade it as new minor versions are released. But some keep specific repositories for each version independently (at least for a little while).
I would start with checking whether your current repository has an explicitly 5.4 repository (by using the URL in the yum.conf or /etc/yum.repos.d/*.repo file for the repository).
If that doesn't work out you get to try other mirrors as listed on the CentOS mirrors website.
As a fallback, and I encourage you to try to find a valid mirror first, you can find this sort of minor version specific repository on http://vault.centos.org.
I'm trying to build a Yocto image.
I'm running Ubuntu 12.04. I've installed the packages the link above recommends (and more)
I cloned the poky git repository, and checked out the daisy-11.0.0 tag.
conf/local.conf has MACHINE=qemux86, nearly all other settings are default.
I tweaked # of threads for bitbake and make.
bitbake -k core-image-minimal
I get the following error during the do_configure task of libusb1_1.0.18.bb:
configure: error: "udev support requested but libudev not installed"
libudev-dev is installed.
This seems strange to me because I'm using a plain vanilla no frills setup.
Does anyone know how to resolve this configure error?
I'm not 100% sure this is on-topic for SO. Please direct me to the proper place if so before closing.
You should just do a repo sync, it has been solved and pushed today (20 may 2014)
I got the exact same problem but in a slightly different environment. I’m just sharing this answer in case it helps you solve your problems.
Anyway, I am running Ubuntu 14.04, and I checked out the latest from git://github.com/openembedded/oe-core.git. I started a build but got the exact same problem. Just like you, I get the following error during the do_configure task of libusb1_1.0.18.bb:
configure: error: "udev support requested but libudev not installed"
So I checked the git logs and noticed that that particular recipe was modified on May 15, which was a day before my checkout. I decided to pull out those changes (by checking out the previous commit) and rebuilt the image. It succeeded, which makes me think that update may have broken the build.