Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: [meta-ti] [master/kirkstone][PATCH] all: Graphics recipe overhaul

["Sapp, Randolph" <rs@ti.com>]

On Fri, Jan 20 2023 at 05:11:20 PM -0500, Denys Dmytriyenko 
<denis@denix.org> wrote:
> Well, there are pros and cons to both approaches. And I would be more 
> inclined
> to agree with you that it is necessary to copy over the entire Mesa 
> recipes,
> if you were trying to apply patches on top of the upstream version. 
> But, you
> are completely changing SRC_URI and SRCREV anyway to point to your 
> own tree,
> so it doesn't matter very much what underlying version of the recipe 
> you start
> with. I do believe it would just work for the master with 22.2.3 
> version.
> Sure, recipes sometimes change significantly and break your bbappend, 
> but
> that's when it will be the time to consider carrying the full set of 
> older
> version, sometime in the future.
> 
> As an example, we've been carrying bbappends in meta-ti for upstream 
> optee and
> trunsted-firmware-a recipes from meta-arm - sometimes we fall behind 
> and stick
> to an older version, but sometimes we update to a newer version 
> earlier than
> upstream. That's been working for several years and quite successful 
> for the
> most part...
> 
> On the other side of the spectrum, there's ltp-ddt recipe that is 
> based on top
> of the upstream ltp recipe of a specific version. It's not exactly a 
> bbappend,
> but close enough. When upstream upgrades to a newer version, we end 
> up copying
> the specific previous version locally side-by-side. Later, when we 
> rebase
> ltp-ddt and catch up with the ltp version upstream, we can remove the
> duplicate.
> 
> In other words, *IF* we end up duplicating Mesa recipes locally, I'd 
> argue we
> should keep them unmodified and apply any modifications through 
> bbappend. If
> needed, you can make it version-specific, e.g. mesa_22.0.%.bbappend. 
> That way
> in kirkstone you only need this bbappend, but in langdale/mickledore 
> you may
> end up having a local copy of *unmodified* mesa_22.0.3.bb from 
> kirkstone along
> with this mesa_22.0.%.bbappend on top. In other words - if you 
> refrain from
> modifying the local duplicates of upstream files and keep them 
> intact, it
> would be much easier to maintain long term...

Well what do you recommend? Version pinning (through the copy in 
meta-ti) in addition to a bbappend, or just a version globed bbappend?