* In consistancy in the defition of BBFILE_COLLECTIONS in layer.conf
@ 2011-05-26 1:17 Jeremy Puhlman
2011-05-26 3:37 ` Tom Zanussi
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jeremy Puhlman @ 2011-05-26 1:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Yocto Mailer; +Cc: dvhart
Opps sent from wrong account.
I was working with some layerinfo code, and I noticed that the values of
BBFILE_COLLECTIONS in layer.conf in the meta-intel repo are kind of all over the map:
for each in */conf/layer.conf; do cat $each; done | grep BBFILE_COLLECTIONS
BBFILE_COLLECTIONS_crownbay += "crownbay"
BBFILE_COLLECTIONS_crownbay-noemgd += "crownbay-noemgd"
BBFILE_COLLECTIONS_fishriver += "fishriver"
BBFILE_COLLECTIONS_jasperforest += "jasperforest"
BBFILE_COLLECTIONS_sugarbay += "sugarbay"
For the above layers when I just list out oe-core and one of the above,
the results from BBFILE_COLLECTIONS ends up
just being what ever was set above.
BBFILE_COLLECTIONS += "n450"
BBFILE_COLLECTIONS += "emenlow"
When using these layers, the final BBFILE_COLLECTIONS is the list of all
the layers as expected.
Was just curious if there was a intentional reason why the
difference(i.e. is there some code that I am missing that fixes this up)?
-- Jeremy Puhlman Montavista Sofware, LLC.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: In consistancy in the defition of BBFILE_COLLECTIONS in layer.conf
2011-05-26 1:17 In consistancy in the defition of BBFILE_COLLECTIONS in layer.conf Jeremy Puhlman
@ 2011-05-26 3:37 ` Tom Zanussi
2011-05-26 3:49 ` Jeremy Puhlman
2011-05-26 7:39 ` Martin Jansa
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Tom Zanussi @ 2011-05-26 3:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeremy Puhlman; +Cc: Yocto Mailer, dvhart@linux.intel.com
On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 18:17 -0700, Jeremy Puhlman wrote:
> Opps sent from wrong account.
>
> I was working with some layerinfo code, and I noticed that the values of
> BBFILE_COLLECTIONS in layer.conf in the meta-intel repo are kind of all over the map:
>
> for each in */conf/layer.conf; do cat $each; done | grep BBFILE_COLLECTIONS
> BBFILE_COLLECTIONS_crownbay += "crownbay"
> BBFILE_COLLECTIONS_crownbay-noemgd += "crownbay-noemgd"
> BBFILE_COLLECTIONS_fishriver += "fishriver"
> BBFILE_COLLECTIONS_jasperforest += "jasperforest"
> BBFILE_COLLECTIONS_sugarbay += "sugarbay"
>
> For the above layers when I just list out oe-core and one of the above,
> the results from BBFILE_COLLECTIONS ends up
> just being what ever was set above.
>
> BBFILE_COLLECTIONS += "n450"
> BBFILE_COLLECTIONS += "emenlow"
>
> When using these layers, the final BBFILE_COLLECTIONS is the list of all
> the layers as expected.
>
> Was just curious if there was a intentional reason why the
> difference(i.e. is there some code that I am missing that fixes this up)?
No, not intentional - looks like a case of an overzealous overriding
typo that propagated. I'll cook up a patch to make them all just
'BBFILE_COLLECTIONS += xxxx'
Tom
> -- Jeremy Puhlman Montavista Sofware, LLC.
>
> _______________________________________________
> yocto mailing list
> yocto@yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: In consistancy in the defition of BBFILE_COLLECTIONS in layer.conf
2011-05-26 3:37 ` Tom Zanussi
@ 2011-05-26 3:49 ` Jeremy Puhlman
2011-05-26 7:39 ` Martin Jansa
1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jeremy Puhlman @ 2011-05-26 3:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom Zanussi; +Cc: Yocto Mailer, dvhart@linux.intel.com
> No, not intentional - looks like a case of an overzealous overriding
> typo that propagated. I'll cook up a patch to make them all just
> 'BBFILE_COLLECTIONS += xxxx'
>
> Tom
>
Good deal. Just wanted to double check. Thanks for the quick response.
--
Jeremy Puhlman
Montavista Sofware, LLC.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: In consistancy in the defition of BBFILE_COLLECTIONS in layer.conf
2011-05-26 3:37 ` Tom Zanussi
2011-05-26 3:49 ` Jeremy Puhlman
@ 2011-05-26 7:39 ` Martin Jansa
2011-05-26 9:49 ` Richard Purdie
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Martin Jansa @ 2011-05-26 7:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom Zanussi; +Cc: Yocto Mailer, dvhart@linux.intel.com
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2179 bytes --]
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 10:37:45PM -0500, Tom Zanussi wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 18:17 -0700, Jeremy Puhlman wrote:
> > Opps sent from wrong account.
> >
> > I was working with some layerinfo code, and I noticed that the values of
> > BBFILE_COLLECTIONS in layer.conf in the meta-intel repo are kind of all over the map:
> >
> > for each in */conf/layer.conf; do cat $each; done | grep BBFILE_COLLECTIONS
> > BBFILE_COLLECTIONS_crownbay += "crownbay"
> > BBFILE_COLLECTIONS_crownbay-noemgd += "crownbay-noemgd"
> > BBFILE_COLLECTIONS_fishriver += "fishriver"
> > BBFILE_COLLECTIONS_jasperforest += "jasperforest"
> > BBFILE_COLLECTIONS_sugarbay += "sugarbay"
> >
> > For the above layers when I just list out oe-core and one of the above,
> > the results from BBFILE_COLLECTIONS ends up
> > just being what ever was set above.
> >
> > BBFILE_COLLECTIONS += "n450"
> > BBFILE_COLLECTIONS += "emenlow"
> >
> > When using these layers, the final BBFILE_COLLECTIONS is the list of all
> > the layers as expected.
> >
> > Was just curious if there was a intentional reason why the
> > difference(i.e. is there some code that I am missing that fixes this up)?
>
> No, not intentional - looks like a case of an overzealous overriding
> typo that propagated. I'll cook up a patch to make them all just
> 'BBFILE_COLLECTIONS += xxxx'
Using machine override has one small benefit
when I have meta-nokia layer which has only recipes with
COMPATIBLE_MACHINE = "nokia900" and I'm building different machine (like
om-gta02) I get this warning:
WARNING: No bb files matched BBFILE_PATTERN_nokia-layer '^/OE/shr-core/meta-smartphone/meta-nokia/'
because all bb files from this layer are ignored because of
COMPATIBLE_MACHINE
if I change it like this
-BBFILE_COLLECTIONS += "nokia-layer"
+BBFILE_COLLECTIONS_nokia900 += "nokia-layer"
maybe with more overrides per layer.conf if it supports multiple
machines, the warning is gone, but seems like sstate checksums are
different again, because during test I changed only this and another gcc
rebuild is in runqueue now :/.
--
Martin 'JaMa' Jansa jabber: Martin.Jansa@gmail.com
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 205 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: In consistancy in the defition of BBFILE_COLLECTIONS in layer.conf
2011-05-26 7:39 ` Martin Jansa
@ 2011-05-26 9:49 ` Richard Purdie
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Richard Purdie @ 2011-05-26 9:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Martin Jansa; +Cc: dvhart@linux.intel.com, Yocto Mailer
On Thu, 2011-05-26 at 09:39 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote:
> Using machine override has one small benefit
>
> when I have meta-nokia layer which has only recipes with
> COMPATIBLE_MACHINE = "nokia900" and I'm building different machine (like
> om-gta02) I get this warning:
> WARNING: No bb files matched BBFILE_PATTERN_nokia-layer '^/OE/shr-core/meta-smartphone/meta-nokia/'
> because all bb files from this layer are ignored because of
> COMPATIBLE_MACHINE
I think there is a change on bitbake master which should fix some of the
cases where this warning was appearing (where a layer only
contained .bbappend files).
> if I change it like this
> -BBFILE_COLLECTIONS += "nokia-layer"
> +BBFILE_COLLECTIONS_nokia900 += "nokia-layer"
> maybe with more overrides per layer.conf if it supports multiple
> machines, the warning is gone, but seems like sstate checksums are
> different again, because during test I changed only this and another gcc
> rebuild is in runqueue now :/.
Ouch. If you can figure out what changed we can try and fix that. FWIW,
I also merged the signature generation data writing at stamp creation
time (with fixes).
Cheers,
Richard
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* In consistancy in the defition of BBFILE_COLLECTIONS in layer.conf
@ 2011-05-26 0:54 Jeremy Puhlman
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jeremy Puhlman @ 2011-05-26 0:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Yocto Mailer; +Cc: dvhart
I was working with some layerinfo code, and I noticed that the value of
BBFILE_COLLECTIONS in layer.conf
in the meta-intel repo are kind of all over the map:
for each in */conf/layer.conf; do cat $each; done | grep BBFILE_COLLECTIONS
BBFILE_COLLECTIONS_crownbay += "crownbay"
BBFILE_COLLECTIONS_crownbay-noemgd += "crownbay-noemgd"
BBFILE_COLLECTIONS_fishriver += "fishriver"
BBFILE_COLLECTIONS_jasperforest += "jasperforest"
BBFILE_COLLECTIONS_sugarbay += "sugarbay"
For the above layers when I just list out oe-core and one of the above,
the results from BBFILE_COLLECTIONS ends up
just being what ever was set above.
BBFILE_COLLECTIONS += "n450"
BBFILE_COLLECTIONS += "emenlow"
When using these layers, the final BBFILE_COLLECTIONS is the list of all
the layers as expected.
Was just curious if there was a intentional reason why the
difference(i.e. is there some code that I am missing that fixes this up)?
--
Jeremy Puhlman
Montavista Sofware, LLC.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-05-26 9:49 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2011-05-26 1:17 In consistancy in the defition of BBFILE_COLLECTIONS in layer.conf Jeremy Puhlman
2011-05-26 3:37 ` Tom Zanussi
2011-05-26 3:49 ` Jeremy Puhlman
2011-05-26 7:39 ` Martin Jansa
2011-05-26 9:49 ` Richard Purdie
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2011-05-26 0:54 Jeremy Puhlman
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.