sharpk60 | 24 Feb 20:19 2015
Picon

ipk static analysis tools

Does anyone have any recommendations on tools to check the validity of created ipks?

delicia | 22 Feb 04:19 2015

Communication Mechanism used by opkg

Hi,

I am using opkg to manage kernel versions on a microSD card inserted in an Android device. 
Internet support is not available; the repo will be available locally.

Moreover, there is no direct access to the file system.
All communication to the microSD card happens via a communication manager.

I require information on the communication protocol used between opkg and the package repository.
Appreciate any feedback.

Thanks,
Delicia.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "opkg-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to opkg-devel+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
matt74smtih | 19 Feb 18:07 2015
Picon

Check signature using opkg

I want to use a gpg key to verify a package before it installs. I found the option check_signature 1 in the
opkg.conf file, but I am not sure the details of how it all works. I plan on signing the package with a private
key, then place the public key on my embedded system. Can someone clarify?

Thank you,
Matt

--

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "opkg-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to opkg-devel+unsubscribe@...
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Martin Svensson | 4 Feb 09:54 2015

Empty package list causes open_compressed_file to fail

Hi!

I've been using multiple repositories at the same time. Some of these doesn't contain any packages, so they only contain (an empty) Package-file and a Package.gz-file.
Previously, using 0.2.3, this didn't seem to cause any problems, but when using 0.3.0 rc2 i get the following errors when running opkg update:

Downloading *repo-path1*
Downloading *repo-path2*
Collected errors:
 * open_compressed_file: Failed to open compressed file '/home/username/packages/opkg-cache//http:__repo-path1_Packages.gz': Unrecognized archive format
 * pkg_src_download: Couldn't decompress feed for source repo_1. * open_compressed_file: Failed to open compressed file '/home/username/packages/opkg-cache//http:__repo-path2_Packages.gz': Unrecognized archive format
 * pkg_src_download: Couldn't decompress feed for source repo_2.

Regards,
Martin Svensson

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "opkg-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to opkg-devel+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Paul Barker | 30 Jan 10:54 2015
Picon

FOSDEM

Hi all,

I'm heading to Brussels for FOSDEM 2015 today and will be there all weekend. If
anyone else is going who's been involved with opkg or is interested in the
project, drop me an email and we can meet up.

Thanks,

--

-- 
Paul Barker

Email: paul@...
http://www.paulbarker.me.uk

opkg | 30 Jan 10:51 2015

Re: Issue 124 in opkg: Upgrade of a package do not upgrade the depends


Comment #53 on issue 124 by paul.betafive: Upgrade of a package do not  
upgrade the depends
https://code.google.com/p/opkg/issues/detail?id=124

KirGeNe: That sounds like an excellent idea.

I've avoided using libsolv myself as it looked rather heavyweight. OpenWRT  
uses opkg on systems with very limited filesystem and RAM size so we do  
need to be careful about size. It looks like OpenWRT are still using r618  
though, which predates the v0.2.0 release so I'm not sure what's going on  
there.

We're currently finding new bugs or surprises with dependency resolution  
every couple of months so if libsolv can give us something more stable and  
predictable then I think we're going to have to go for it actually. We  
don't have the manpower on this project to keep solving these bugs with the  
current dependency resolution code in a reasonable timeframe.

This was the same approach I took in adding a dependency on libarchive: the  
old package decompression and extraction code was smaller but completely  
unmaintainable. Better to have opkg be larger but rely on well maintained  
code.

--

-- 
You received this message because this project is configured to send all  
issue notifications to this address.
You may adjust your notification preferences at:
https://code.google.com/hosting/settings

opkg | 29 Jan 13:26 2015

Re: Issue 124 in opkg: Upgrade of a package do not upgrade the depends


Comment #52 on issue 124 by KirG...@...: Upgrade of a package do
not  
upgrade the depends
https://code.google.com/p/opkg/issues/detail?id=124

Yes, there are many issues with current decision mechanism. That's why I've  
started rewriting it to use libsolv library. I'm going to finish it and  
prepare a patch in a week or so.

--

-- 
You received this message because this project is configured to send all  
issue notifications to this address.
You may adjust your notification preferences at:
https://code.google.com/hosting/settings

opkg | 29 Jan 12:39 2015

Re: Issue 124 in opkg: Upgrade of a package do not upgrade the depends


Comment #51 on issue 124 by muuscl...@...: Upgrade of a package
do  
not upgrade the depends
https://code.google.com/p/opkg/issues/detail?id=124

I have a further information to this.
If I use in the described case the --force-depends flag, to forth the  
installation of the packages, I get a "corrupt" status file. Then I can  
find some "not-installed" in the status line, and I get some wrong messages  
if I do an "opkg list-upgradable".

--

-- 
You received this message because this project is configured to send all  
issue notifications to this address.
You may adjust your notification preferences at:
https://code.google.com/hosting/settings

opkg | 29 Jan 12:16 2015

Re: Issue 124 in opkg: Upgrade of a package do not upgrade the depends


Comment #50 on issue 124 by muuscl...@...: Upgrade of a package
do  
not upgrade the depends
https://code.google.com/p/opkg/issues/detail?id=124

Today I fond the reason, why many upgrades fails. Here is a simple example,  
that force the error:

e.g.:
The control files of the installed packages looks like this:
Package: A
Version: 1.0

Package: B
Version: 1.0
Depends: A (= 1.0)

Package: C
Version: 1.0
Depends: A (= 1.0), B (= 1.0)

Package: D
Version: 1.0
Depends: A (= 1.0), B (= 1.0)

Now upgrades for all packages are available. The new packages looks like  
this:
Package: A
Version: 1.1

Package: B
Version: 1.1
Depends: A (= 1.1)

Package: C
Version: 1.1
Depends: A (= 1.1), B (= 1.1)

Package: D
Version: 1.1
Depends: A (= 1.1), B (= 1.1)

In this case the upgrade (--combine) fails completely. In some more complex  
scenarios I have the bigger problem, that some packages will be upgraded,  
and some not. As result I will have a broken system.

It will be great if you can fix this issue soon, since we have really big  
problem with this issue and lots of broken systems during the last month.

--

-- 
You received this message because this project is configured to send all  
issue notifications to this address.
You may adjust your notification preferences at:
https://code.google.com/hosting/settings

[opkg-devel] Mould making/ Die-casting/ Precision stamping/ Machining parts/CNC Precision Parts Manufacturing与您共享了相册。

邀请您观看 Mould making/ Die-casting/ Precision stamping/ Machining parts/CNC Precision Parts Manufacturing 的相册: Precision stamping Machining parts
Precision stamping Machining parts
2014年3月14日
提供者:Mould making/ Die-casting/ Precision stamping/ Machining parts/CNC Precision Parts Manufacturing
来自 Mould making/ Die-casting/ Precision stamping/ Machining parts/CNC Precision Parts Manufacturing 的消息:
Dear Sir/Ms,

Good day!
As an ISO certified factory, we specialized manufacture Mould making/ Sheet metal process/ Die-casting/ Precision stamping/ Machining parts, with strong competitive price and excellent quality, for more than 20 years.
Any questions and enquiries will be highly regarded. Just email us the drawing and detailed requirement, you will get a complete quotation with technical analysis within 24 hours.

Your prompt reply is highly appreciated.

Best regards sincerely!

Michael
________________________________________
Shenzhen, China
如果您在阅读此电子邮件时出现问题,请将以下地址复制并粘贴到您的浏览器中:
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/sredir?uname=112649945790217048953&target=ALBUM&id=6053558222482588497&authkey=Gv1sRgCKvLnMKNgour3wE&feat=email
要分享您的照片或在朋友与您分享照片时收到通知,请获取属于您自己的免费 Picasa 网络相册帐户

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "opkg-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to opkg-devel+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Yan | 27 Jan 10:39 2015

Yan sent you a message on Love.mail.ru

English , Deutsch , Español , Italiano , Français , Русский or Other languages
Yan sent message on Love.mail.ru!
Yan , 43, Ukraine, Kiev
Open your message
And don't forget us! We're waiting to chat with you too...
Gennadij Golovatyuk, 40
Ukraine, Odesa
Sergej, 33
Ukraine, Odesa
Igor, 31
Ukraine, Odesa
Valera, 46
Ukraine, Odesa
All the best,
The Team of Love.mail.ru
You have received this e-mail because you have a invitation from another user Yan on Love.mail.ru .
If you do not want to receive any more e-mails, please click this link to unsubscribe.
The company W.O.D. Ltd is a company incorporated under the laws of England & Wales. The company registration number is 6992957. The company's office is located at 54 Poland Street, London, W1F 7NH.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "opkg-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to opkg-devel+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Gmane