Re: [RFC] Stop on multiple providers but none explicitly specified

[Richard Purdie <rpurdie@rpsys.net>]

On Wed, 2008-05-14 at 23:36 +0200, Leon Woestenberg wrote:
> Hello all,
> 
> in trying to explain a new user why his build fails, it was the
> classic situation of multiple providers available but non specified:
> 
> NOTE: multiple providers are available for virtual/libc
> (external-toolchain, uclibc);
> NOTE: consider defining PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/libc
> 
> Now, as far as I know, this makes the build non-deterministic, because
> bitbake "just" chooses one.
> 
> Why do we want this behaviour? I cannot see any benefit in this situation.
> 
> We should at least prefer one over the other, or just bail out in my opinion.

Bitbake will pick one, the options in brackets are in the order bitbake
will choose them. We sort them alphabetically iirc since that is more
deterministic than depending on parsing order which was the previous
approach.

Cheers,

Richard