From 0bd433ebf56558974508addfd5df8bc412a474f8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Richard Purdie Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 22:36:06 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] opkg: Fix installation order in feeds with mutiple providers of packages If two packages were available of differing priority, this would confuse opkg and it was ignoring the dependency in the new dependency ordering code. This changes it not to ignore these cases by setting the badly named 'quiet' parameter accordingly. (From OE-Core rev: c38693f78c968ab5f4bb557c20d1c8c55393ed6b) (From OE-Core rev: 4c75318b75c4776cc469cc2c6511596bc7befbb4) Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie --- meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg/fix_installorder.patch | 2 +- meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg_svn.bb | 2 +- 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg/fix_installorder.patch b/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg/fix_installorder.patch index e782ce738d..5e6c40d649 100644 --- a/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg/fix_installorder.patch +++ b/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg/fix_installorder.patch @@ -144,7 +144,7 @@ Index: trunk/libopkg/pkg_depends.c + pkg_t *satisfying_pkg = + pkg_hash_fetch_best_installation_candidate(satisfying_apkg, + pkg_installed_and_constraint_satisfied, -+ dependence_to_satisfy, 1); ++ dependence_to_satisfy, 0); + /* Being that I can't test constraing in pkg_hash, I will test it here */ + if (satisfying_pkg != NULL && satisfying_pkg != pkg) { + if (pkg_constraint_satisfied(satisfying_pkg, dependence_to_satisfy) && satisfying_pkg->state_want == SW_INSTALL) diff --git a/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg_svn.bb b/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg_svn.bb index 00591d168f..f5f540d78e 100644 --- a/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg_svn.bb +++ b/meta/recipes-devtools/opkg/opkg_svn.bb @@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ S = "${WORKDIR}/trunk" SRCREV = "633" PV = "0.1.8+svnr${SRCPV}" -PR = "r4" +PR = "r5" PACKAGES =+ "libopkg${PKGSUFFIX}-dev libopkg${PKGSUFFIX} update-alternatives-cworth${PKGSUFFIX}"