linux-yocto 3.0.1 upgrade broke PREFERRED_VERSION setting in BSPs

linux-yocto 3.0.1 upgrade broke PREFERRED_VERSION setting in BSPs

[Darren Hart]

We have just rolled out PREFERRED_VERSION="3.0+git%", and these now fail
with messages like:

NOTE: preferred version 3.0+git% of linux-yocto not available (for item
virtual/kernel)

I could patch everything really quick to use 3.0.1+git%... but 3.0.2 was
just released and I'd have to do it again tomorrow. For 2.6.37, the
LINUX_VERSION remained the same across point releases. I recommend we do
the same for 3.0. I really don't want to have to go through and update
all the PREFERRED_VERSIONs in addition to all the SRCREVs everytime a
point release comes out.

-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
Yocto Project - Linux Kernel

Re: linux-yocto 3.0.1 upgrade broke PREFERRED_VERSION setting in BSPs

[Bruce Ashfield]

On 11-08-17 11:23 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
> We have just rolled out PREFERRED_VERSION="3.0+git%", and these now fail
> with messages like:
>
> NOTE: preferred version 3.0+git% of linux-yocto not available (for item
> virtual/kernel)
>
> I could patch everything really quick to use 3.0.1+git%... but 3.0.2 was
> just released and I'd have to do it again tomorrow. For 2.6.37, the
> LINUX_VERSION remained the same across point releases. I recommend we do
> the same for 3.0. I really don't want to have to go through and update
> all the PREFERRED_VERSIONs in addition to all the SRCREVs everytime a
> point release comes out.

I made this change due to some other explicit requests about the
kernel version not being obvious. I don't really see this as a big
deal, I'm already updating SRCREVs, we are already updating the
SRCREVs in the meta-* layers .. so I fail to see how this is much
more load.

I'd argue that 2.6.37 was a mistake, and you shouldn't even need
to set the preferred version anymore once the latest kernel works
for your machines. It will always be selected and you shouldn't
need to force it. We only needed this during the transition phase,
and I'm about to change the default in meta-yocto .. so you definitely
won't need it.

Cheers,

Bruce

>

Re: linux-yocto 3.0.1 upgrade broke PREFERRED_VERSION setting in BSPs

[Bruce Ashfield]

On 11-08-18 12:11 AM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
> On 11-08-17 11:23 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
>> We have just rolled out PREFERRED_VERSION="3.0+git%", and these now fail
>> with messages like:
>>
>> NOTE: preferred version 3.0+git% of linux-yocto not available (for item
>> virtual/kernel)
>>
>> I could patch everything really quick to use 3.0.1+git%... but 3.0.2 was
>> just released and I'd have to do it again tomorrow. For 2.6.37, the
>> LINUX_VERSION remained the same across point releases. I recommend we do
>> the same for 3.0. I really don't want to have to go through and update
>> all the PREFERRED_VERSIONs in addition to all the SRCREVs everytime a
>> point release comes out.
>
> I made this change due to some other explicit requests about the
> kernel version not being obvious. I don't really see this as a big
> deal, I'm already updating SRCREVs, we are already updating the
> SRCREVs in the meta-* layers .. so I fail to see how this is much
> more load.
>
> I'd argue that 2.6.37 was a mistake, and you shouldn't even need
> to set the preferred version anymore once the latest kernel works
> for your machines. It will always be selected and you shouldn't
> need to force it. We only needed this during the transition phase,
> and I'm about to change the default in meta-yocto .. so you definitely
> won't need it.

Another thought on this is that we follow up on the discussion that
we had when I first had to force some boards back to 2.6.37. We drop
all the preferred version manipulations and control this via
DEFAULT_PREFERENCE.

I can just set DEFAULT_PREFERENCE = -1 in the linux-yocto_<ver>.bb
file, and as machines are tested/validated, they'll just set
the DEFAULT_PREFERENCE_$MACHINE in their recipe/bbappend file. That
saves us all the PREFERRED version fun.

Alternatively, we go back to just setting it to 3.0 and leaving it
there and those folks that don't want to check the tags in the kernel
I can put a comment in the recipe that lets them know the true
version.

Cheers,

Bruce

>
> Cheers,
>
> Bruce
>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> yocto mailing list
> yocto@yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto

Re: linux-yocto 3.0.1 upgrade broke PREFERRED_VERSION setting in BSPs

[Darren Hart]

On 08/17/2011 09:40 PM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
> On 11-08-18 12:11 AM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>> On 11-08-17 11:23 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
>>> We have just rolled out PREFERRED_VERSION="3.0+git%", and these now fail
>>> with messages like:
>>>
>>> NOTE: preferred version 3.0+git% of linux-yocto not available (for item
>>> virtual/kernel)
>>>
>>> I could patch everything really quick to use 3.0.1+git%... but 3.0.2 was
>>> just released and I'd have to do it again tomorrow. For 2.6.37, the

and 3.0.3 is out...

>>> LINUX_VERSION remained the same across point releases. I recommend we do
>>> the same for 3.0. I really don't want to have to go through and update
>>> all the PREFERRED_VERSIONs in addition to all the SRCREVs everytime a
>>> point release comes out.
>>
>> I made this change due to some other explicit requests about the
>> kernel version not being obvious. I don't really see this as a big
>> deal, I'm already updating SRCREVs, we are already updating the
>> SRCREVs in the meta-* layers .. so I fail to see how this is much
>> more load.

Don't forget the -rt variant, it is still at 3.0.

>> I'd argue that 2.6.37 was a mistake, and you shouldn't even need
>> to set the preferred version anymore once the latest kernel works
>> for your machines. It will always be selected and you shouldn't
>> need to force it. We only needed this during the transition phase,
>> and I'm about to change the default in meta-yocto .. so you definitely
>> won't need it.
> 
> Another thought on this is that we follow up on the discussion that
> we had when I first had to force some boards back to 2.6.37. We drop
> all the preferred version manipulations and control this via
> DEFAULT_PREFERENCE.
> 
> I can just set DEFAULT_PREFERENCE = -1 in the linux-yocto_<ver>.bb
> file, and as machines are tested/validated, they'll just set
> the DEFAULT_PREFERENCE_$MACHINE in their recipe/bbappend file. That
> saves us all the PREFERRED version fun.

It makes a lot more sense to me to specify the kernel to use in the
machine config and not allow whatever recipe claim DEFAULT_PREFERENCE
for the machines.

> 
> Alternatively, we go back to just setting it to 3.0 and leaving it
> there and those folks that don't want to check the tags in the kernel
> I can put a comment in the recipe that lets them know the true
> version.

It is a bit odd to have to specify a version that doesn't match the
filename itself. But I guess we already have to do that in part with the
"+git%" thing. What is the "%" by the way - is it a wildcard? If so, can
we use a wildcard to include point releases?


-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
Yocto Project - Linux Kernel

Re: linux-yocto 3.0.1 upgrade broke PREFERRED_VERSION setting in BSPs

[Bruce Ashfield]

On 11-08-18 01:31 AM, Darren Hart wrote:
>
>
> On 08/17/2011 09:40 PM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>> On 11-08-18 12:11 AM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>>> On 11-08-17 11:23 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
>>>> We have just rolled out PREFERRED_VERSION="3.0+git%", and these now fail
>>>> with messages like:
>>>>
>>>> NOTE: preferred version 3.0+git% of linux-yocto not available (for item
>>>> virtual/kernel)
>>>>
>>>> I could patch everything really quick to use 3.0.1+git%... but 3.0.2 was
>>>> just released and I'd have to do it again tomorrow. For 2.6.37, the
>
> and 3.0.3 is out...
>
>>>> LINUX_VERSION remained the same across point releases. I recommend we do
>>>> the same for 3.0. I really don't want to have to go through and update
>>>> all the PREFERRED_VERSIONs in addition to all the SRCREVs everytime a
>>>> point release comes out.
>>>
>>> I made this change due to some other explicit requests about the
>>> kernel version not being obvious. I don't really see this as a big
>>> deal, I'm already updating SRCREVs, we are already updating the
>>> SRCREVs in the meta-* layers .. so I fail to see how this is much
>>> more load.
>
> Don't forget the -rt variant, it is still at 3.0.
>
>>> I'd argue that 2.6.37 was a mistake, and you shouldn't even need
>>> to set the preferred version anymore once the latest kernel works
>>> for your machines. It will always be selected and you shouldn't
>>> need to force it. We only needed this during the transition phase,
>>> and I'm about to change the default in meta-yocto .. so you definitely
>>> won't need it.
>>
>> Another thought on this is that we follow up on the discussion that
>> we had when I first had to force some boards back to 2.6.37. We drop
>> all the preferred version manipulations and control this via
>> DEFAULT_PREFERENCE.
>>
>> I can just set DEFAULT_PREFERENCE = -1 in the linux-yocto_<ver>.bb
>> file, and as machines are tested/validated, they'll just set
>> the DEFAULT_PREFERENCE_$MACHINE in their recipe/bbappend file. That
>> saves us all the PREFERRED version fun.
>
> It makes a lot more sense to me to specify the kernel to use in the
> machine config and not allow whatever recipe claim DEFAULT_PREFERENCE
> for the machines.
>
>>
>> Alternatively, we go back to just setting it to 3.0 and leaving it
>> there and those folks that don't want to check the tags in the kernel
>> I can put a comment in the recipe that lets them know the true
>> version.
>
> It is a bit odd to have to specify a version that doesn't match the
> filename itself. But I guess we already have to do that in part with the
> "+git%" thing. What is the "%" by the way - is it a wildcard? If so, can
> we use a wildcard to include point releases?

It is a wildcard .. I tried briefly to get it to match the point
release. I had the same problem here, and didn't get the right
combination to match the point release. I'll look at it more today
as well .. or if someone knows the matching semantics off the top
of their head, feel free to speak up! :)

Bruce

>
>

Re: linux-yocto 3.0.1 upgrade broke PREFERRED_VERSION setting in BSPs

[Martin Jansa]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3628 bytes --]

On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 09:33:17AM -0400, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
> On 11-08-18 01:31 AM, Darren Hart wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 08/17/2011 09:40 PM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
> >> On 11-08-18 12:11 AM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
> >>> On 11-08-17 11:23 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
> >>>> We have just rolled out PREFERRED_VERSION="3.0+git%", and these now fail
> >>>> with messages like:
> >>>>
> >>>> NOTE: preferred version 3.0+git% of linux-yocto not available (for item
> >>>> virtual/kernel)
> >>>>
> >>>> I could patch everything really quick to use 3.0.1+git%... but 3.0.2 was
> >>>> just released and I'd have to do it again tomorrow. For 2.6.37, the
> >
> > and 3.0.3 is out...
> >
> >>>> LINUX_VERSION remained the same across point releases. I recommend we do
> >>>> the same for 3.0. I really don't want to have to go through and update
> >>>> all the PREFERRED_VERSIONs in addition to all the SRCREVs everytime a
> >>>> point release comes out.
> >>>
> >>> I made this change due to some other explicit requests about the
> >>> kernel version not being obvious. I don't really see this as a big
> >>> deal, I'm already updating SRCREVs, we are already updating the
> >>> SRCREVs in the meta-* layers .. so I fail to see how this is much
> >>> more load.
> >
> > Don't forget the -rt variant, it is still at 3.0.
> >
> >>> I'd argue that 2.6.37 was a mistake, and you shouldn't even need
> >>> to set the preferred version anymore once the latest kernel works
> >>> for your machines. It will always be selected and you shouldn't
> >>> need to force it. We only needed this during the transition phase,
> >>> and I'm about to change the default in meta-yocto .. so you definitely
> >>> won't need it.
> >>
> >> Another thought on this is that we follow up on the discussion that
> >> we had when I first had to force some boards back to 2.6.37. We drop
> >> all the preferred version manipulations and control this via
> >> DEFAULT_PREFERENCE.
> >>
> >> I can just set DEFAULT_PREFERENCE = -1 in the linux-yocto_<ver>.bb
> >> file, and as machines are tested/validated, they'll just set
> >> the DEFAULT_PREFERENCE_$MACHINE in their recipe/bbappend file. That
> >> saves us all the PREFERRED version fun.
> >
> > It makes a lot more sense to me to specify the kernel to use in the
> > machine config and not allow whatever recipe claim DEFAULT_PREFERENCE
> > for the machines.
> >
> >>
> >> Alternatively, we go back to just setting it to 3.0 and leaving it
> >> there and those folks that don't want to check the tags in the kernel
> >> I can put a comment in the recipe that lets them know the true
> >> version.
> >
> > It is a bit odd to have to specify a version that doesn't match the
> > filename itself. But I guess we already have to do that in part with the
> > "+git%" thing. What is the "%" by the way - is it a wildcard? If so, can
> > we use a wildcard to include point releases?
> 
> It is a wildcard .. I tried briefly to get it to match the point
> release. I had the same problem here, and didn't get the right
> combination to match the point release. I'll look at it more today
> as well .. or if someone knows the matching semantics off the top
> of their head, feel free to speak up! :)

'%' can be used only at the end and it's expected to produce only 1
match 

like 1.0+git%

if there is only one version starting '1.0+git' and we just don't know
exact SRCPV/SRCREV used.

http://git.openembedded.org/cgit.cgi/bitbake/commit/?id=2d1203f446a3527e4d261828b3c10df249119007

-- 
Martin 'JaMa' Jansa     jabber: Martin.Jansa@gmail.com

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 205 bytes --]

Re: linux-yocto 3.0.1 upgrade broke PREFERRED_VERSION setting in BSPs

[Tom Zanussi]

On Wed, 2011-08-17 at 21:11 -0700, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
> On 11-08-17 11:23 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
> > We have just rolled out PREFERRED_VERSION="3.0+git%", and these now fail
> > with messages like:
> >
> > NOTE: preferred version 3.0+git% of linux-yocto not available (for item
> > virtual/kernel)
> >
> > I could patch everything really quick to use 3.0.1+git%... but 3.0.2 was
> > just released and I'd have to do it again tomorrow. For 2.6.37, the
> > LINUX_VERSION remained the same across point releases. I recommend we do
> > the same for 3.0. I really don't want to have to go through and update
> > all the PREFERRED_VERSIONs in addition to all the SRCREVs everytime a
> > point release comes out.
> 
> I made this change due to some other explicit requests about the
> kernel version not being obvious. I don't really see this as a big
> deal, I'm already updating SRCREVs, we are already updating the
> SRCREVs in the meta-* layers .. so I fail to see how this is much
> more load.
> 

Maybe the extra load isn't a big deal, but at least the SRCREVs can
change most of the time without breaking everything like this does.

> I'd argue that 2.6.37 was a mistake, and you shouldn't even need
> to set the preferred version anymore once the latest kernel works
> for your machines. It will always be selected and you shouldn't
> need to force it. We only needed this during the transition phase,
> and I'm about to change the default in meta-yocto .. so you definitely
> won't need it.
> 

It would be great not to have to set the preferred version at all - how
do I get that to work?

Tom

> Cheers,
> 
> Bruce
> 
> >
> 

Re: linux-yocto 3.0.1 upgrade broke PREFERRED_VERSION setting in BSPs

[Bruce Ashfield]

On 11-08-18 09:02 AM, Tom Zanussi wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-08-17 at 21:11 -0700, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>> On 11-08-17 11:23 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
>>> We have just rolled out PREFERRED_VERSION="3.0+git%", and these now fail
>>> with messages like:
>>>
>>> NOTE: preferred version 3.0+git% of linux-yocto not available (for item
>>> virtual/kernel)
>>>
>>> I could patch everything really quick to use 3.0.1+git%... but 3.0.2 was
>>> just released and I'd have to do it again tomorrow. For 2.6.37, the
>>> LINUX_VERSION remained the same across point releases. I recommend we do
>>> the same for 3.0. I really don't want to have to go through and update
>>> all the PREFERRED_VERSIONs in addition to all the SRCREVs everytime a
>>> point release comes out.
>>
>> I made this change due to some other explicit requests about the
>> kernel version not being obvious. I don't really see this as a big
>> deal, I'm already updating SRCREVs, we are already updating the
>> SRCREVs in the meta-* layers .. so I fail to see how this is much
>> more load.
>>
>
> Maybe the extra load isn't a big deal, but at least the SRCREVs can
> change most of the time without breaking everything like this does.
>
>> I'd argue that 2.6.37 was a mistake, and you shouldn't even need
>> to set the preferred version anymore once the latest kernel works
>> for your machines. It will always be selected and you shouldn't
>> need to force it. We only needed this during the transition phase,
>> and I'm about to change the default in meta-yocto .. so you definitely
>> won't need it.
>>
>
> It would be great not to have to set the preferred version at all - how
> do I get that to work?

We can get away from it without setting preferred version by
either the default preference scheme, or by virtue of removing
the default preferred version from poky.conf. I'm working on
the latter right now (some final builds of boards are problematic).

Once we are in a stable state, this won't be required at all, since
it is the default. But when we bump to the next kernel version, the
same thing happens. The newest is picked by bitbake and you'd need
to set the preferred version to what you want all over again. That's
where default_preference comes into play and saves us any wildcard
issues.

That all being said, I'm going to revert the part of the change
that bumped the version string and send it out for merge. So leave
your preferred version strings as they currently are. Post 1.1 we'll
move to a scheme that makes more sense (and at a time when we can
properly think about it).

Bruce

>
> Tom
>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>>>
>>
>
>

Re: linux-yocto 3.0.1 upgrade broke PREFERRED_VERSION setting in BSPs

[Khem Raj]

On 8/17/2011 8:23 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
> We have just rolled out PREFERRED_VERSION="3.0+git%", and these now fail
> with messages like:
>
> NOTE: preferred version 3.0+git% of linux-yocto not available (for item
> virtual/kernel)
>
> I could patch everything really quick to use 3.0.1+git%... but 3.0.2 was
> just released and I'd have to do it again tomorrow. For 2.6.37, the
> LINUX_VERSION remained the same across point releases. I recommend we do
> the same for 3.0. I really don't want to have to go through and update
> all the PREFERRED_VERSIONs in addition to all the SRCREVs everytime a
> point release comes out.
>

In my understanding 2.6 has now become 3 and .40 became .0 making it 3.0
therefore versions should be 3.0+gitrXXXX 3.1+gitrXXXX etc. 3.0.1 is 
similar to naming scheme 2.6.39.1 in olden days

Re: linux-yocto 3.0.1 upgrade broke PREFERRED_VERSION setting in BSPs

[Bruce Ashfield]

On 11-08-19 2:00 AM, Khem Raj wrote:
> On 8/17/2011 8:23 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
>> We have just rolled out PREFERRED_VERSION="3.0+git%", and these now fail
>> with messages like:
>>
>> NOTE: preferred version 3.0+git% of linux-yocto not available (for item
>> virtual/kernel)
>>
>> I could patch everything really quick to use 3.0.1+git%... but 3.0.2 was
>> just released and I'd have to do it again tomorrow. For 2.6.37, the
>> LINUX_VERSION remained the same across point releases. I recommend we do
>> the same for 3.0. I really don't want to have to go through and update
>> all the PREFERRED_VERSIONs in addition to all the SRCREVs everytime a
>> point release comes out.
>>
>
> In my understanding 2.6 has now become 3 and .40 became .0 making it 3.0
> therefore versions should be 3.0+gitrXXXX 3.1+gitrXXXX etc. 3.0.1 is
> similar to naming scheme 2.6.39.1 in olden days

Correct. The 3rd digit is the domain of the -stable udpates, just
like the 4th digit used to be. So we'll expect 5 or 6 updates to this
for each supported kernel.

Cheers,

Bruce

> _______________________________________________
> yocto mailing list
> yocto@yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto