Jani Hautakangas
unread,Aug 20, 2025, 4:08:55 PMAug 20Sign in to reply to author
Sign in to forward
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to isar-users
Hello all,
I am trying to upgrade libpng_1.6.39 in a Debian Bookworm–based image.
My goal is to get APNG support and a few newer APIs, so I patched libpng
1.6.45 with APNG support and want it to replace the default 1.6.39.
What I did:
* Added a recipe libpng1.6_1.6.45 (with APNG patch).
* All recipes that need it have DEPENDS on libpng1.6_1.6.45 and also
DEBIAN_DEPENDS/DEBIAN_BUILD_DEPENDS set to libpng (>= 1.6.45).
* Pinned my local Isar repo for libpng* packages in apt conf.
* Set PREFERRED_VERSION_libpng1.6 = "1.6.45".
Results:
* On amd64 builds everything works fine: the new libpng is built, packaged, and
installed.
* On arm64 builds (e.g. rpi5), libpng 1.6.45 is also built and packaged fine,
but system build fails when installing dependencies.
The error always looks like this (excerpt):
The following packages have unmet dependencies:
libgdk-pixbuf-2.0-0 : Depends: libpng16-16 (>= 1.6.2-1) but it is not installable
Or, in the longer resolver log:
sbuild-build-depends-main-dummy:arm64 : Depends: libpng-dev:arm64 (>= 1.6.45) but it is not going to be installed
...
libgdk-pixbuf-2.0-0 : Depends: libpng16-16 (>= 1.6.2-1) but it is not installable
It looks like cross builds handle dependencies differently, and the resolver
doesn’t see my locally built libpng16-16 as satisfiable on arm64 (while amd64 works fine).
I verified that the arm64 package itself is fine — when I install it manually on an
rpi5 Bookworm image, it installs and works correctly — so the issue seems to be
somewhere in Isar’s dependency resolution.
Question:
Has anyone successfully replaced a system library like libpng with a newer version on
cross builds in Isar? Is there something extra I need to do so that the resolver picks
up my libpng16-16 (1.6.45) package instead of failing with “not installable”?
Any hints would be greatly appreciated.
Best regards,
Jani