Hello
We( @m.traeumner and me ) tried to install the IPS-package in the software center which fails with an error during evebox installation.
We tried to install the evebox-package manually and we get the following error:
Error: Package: nethserver-evebox-1.2.0-1.ns7.noarch (nethserver-updates)
Requires: evebox >= 0.10.2
Available: evebox-0.9.1-1.fc27.armv7hl (nethserver-base)
evebox = 0.9.1-1.fc27
The version in the status dashboard says the following :
System Version NethServer release 7.6.1810 (final)
Kernel 3.10.108-BPI-M2U-Kernel
We suspect that the wrong version of the evebox package is in the repository…
If more information is needed, please tell us…
Greetings
Björn
EDIT:
We need this for a Banana PI ARM environment (Banana PI M2U, 2GB RAM )
EDIT 01.08.2019
A link for downloading a version to test is at message 19 from @davidep :
3 Likes
@support_team
Can somebody confirm it?
Is the problem based on arm package?
cc @dev_team
pike
(Michael Kicks)
July 9, 2019, 6:30pm
3
Well…
Seems that Evebox 0.10.2 has not yet compiled for armv7…
1 Like
dnutan
(Marc)
July 9, 2019, 8:28pm
4
Yes, the latest evebox version for arm is not on the repos. I think Michael is right on the spot about compilation.
1 Like
m.traeumner
(Michael Träumner)
July 10, 2019, 8:57am
5
OK, we will try to compile it. Can somebody explain how to add it to the repo? A PR at GitHub?
Thanks Michael
2 Likes
davidep
(Davide Principi)
July 10, 2019, 9:09am
6
I can upload it for you, or grant you upload access
1 Like
m.traeumner
(Michael Träumner)
July 10, 2019, 10:35am
7
Thanks, we send you a message if we have built it.
2 Likes
davidep
(Davide Principi)
July 25, 2019, 7:43am
8
@smutje1179 , @m.traeumner , thank you for sending me the RPM
Before uploading it to nethserver-testing, please help me to check the following information: /cc @dz00te @giacomo
[davidep@davidep1 ~]$ rpm -qpi Downloads/evebox-0.10.2-1.armv7l.rpm
Name : evebox
Version : 0.10.2
Release : 1
Architecture: armv7hnl
Install Date: (not installed)
Group : default
Size : 14481834
License : unknown
Signature : (none)
Source RPM : evebox-0.10.2-1.src.rpm
Build Date : Wed 24 Jul 2019 21:16:54 CEST
Build Host : localhost
Relocations : /
Packager : <root@bpi-iot-ros-ai>
Vendor : root@bpi-iot-ros-ai
URL : http://example.com/no-uri-given
Summary : no description given
Description :
no description given
The Release
is missing the repo suffix (e.g .ns7
): shouldn’t harm but for the final release I prefer to see it, expecially in the file name (i.e. evebox-0.10.2-1.ns7.armsomething.rpm
). To fix it, just edit the .spec
file and set the Release to 1.ns7
. RPM packages conventions make use of the dist
macro: see this example .
The file name arch is armv7l
and differs from the Architecture: armv7hnl
tag: is it an issue?
Note: when an armv7hl
arch package is uploaded it ends up in armhfp/
repository automatically.
1 Like
Hello
i think i can take care of this today, in the evening, but there is a chance that i can only work on this tomorrow…
Greetings
Björn
2 Likes
Hello Davide !
I’ve finally managed to upload a rpm file to your cloud !
I hope nothing is going to explode with this rpm
If you didn’t get a file : Write me a note ! Then i will try again to upload it !
Greetings
Björn
PS : Thanks to all who have supported me !
3 Likes
Hello Davide !
I’ve uploaded one rpm which is hopefully better!
Greeting
Björn
3 Likes
davidep
(Davide Principi)
July 26, 2019, 8:31am
13
Got it!
$ rpm -qpi evebox-0.10.2-1.ns7.armv7l.rpm
Name : evebox
Version : 0.10.2
Release : 1.ns7
Architecture: armv7hnl
Install Date: (not installed)
Group : default
Size : 14481834
License : unknown
Signature : (none)
Source RPM : evebox-0.10.2-1.ns7.src.rpm
Build Date : Thu 25 Jul 2019 17:56:14 CEST
Build Host : localhost
Relocations : /
Packager : <pi@bpi-iot-ros-ai>
Vendor : pi@bpi-iot-ros-ai
URL : http://example.com/no-uri-given
Summary : no description given
Description :
no description given
I’ve a question: the arch is armv7hnl
, should it go under armhfp
?
Hello Davide !
Yes, i think so. Do i have to change it in the spec of the rpm?
Greetings
1 Like
davidep
(Davide Principi)
July 26, 2019, 4:52pm
15
I don’t know what is the correct value By now we have a armv7hl
=> armhfp
rule (missing n )
Is the “n” just a typo? https://stackoverflow.com/questions/29166619/differences-between-arm-versions-armv7-only#29167402
Hello Davide
I’ve tried to figure out what this name “armv7hnl” means without any results.
I think this is a valid architecture description because i’ve found on some places the same name (e.g. openmandriva uses the same…).
The problem is that i can not tell you the difference between an “armv7hnl” and a “armv7l” or even if they are compatible to each other…
Greetings
Björn
2 Likes
giacomo
(Giacomo Sanchietti)
July 31, 2019, 6:50am
17
I think the “n” just mean “neon” with an advanced instruction set.
See this patch and wikipedia .
I’ve a question: the arch is armv7hnl
, should it go under armhfp
?
I’d say yes.
2 Likes
davidep
(Davide Principi)
July 31, 2019, 7:46am
18
Thank you for your feedback! I’m changing the repository arch rules to match armhfp in a smarter way
@giacomo you’re going to review it
1 Like
davidep
(Davide Principi)
July 31, 2019, 8:28am
19
2 Likes
m.traeumner
(Michael Träumner)
August 1, 2019, 6:55pm
20
Installed with
yum install enablerepo=nethserver-testing evebox
Installation works fine but I could choose it for installation at softwarecenter anymore.
m.traeumner
(Michael Träumner)
August 27, 2019, 9:58am
21
@dev_team Is this a normal behaviour
@arm_team Did somebody else tested it? Would be nice if it’s implemented.