From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.dream-property.net ([82.149.226.172]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1S0c4D-0006kj-A0 for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 18:02:53 +0100 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.dream-property.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE9BF315942A for ; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 17:54:32 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mail.dream-property.net Received: from mail.dream-property.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.dream-property.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id v-3rRDoytmqg for ; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 17:54:22 +0100 (CET) Received: from [172.22.22.61] (drms-590ed8a0.pool.mediaWays.net [89.14.216.160]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.dream-property.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2891B3159419 for ; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 17:54:22 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <4F466F3D.8060504@opendreambox.org> Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 17:54:21 +0100 From: Andreas Oberritter User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.2) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org References: <4F4645CC.4050403@opendreambox.org> <20120223140409.GT3769@jama.jama.net> In-Reply-To: <20120223140409.GT3769@jama.jama.net> Subject: Re: bug in recipe version priorities across layers? X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 17:02:53 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 23.02.2012 15:04, Martin Jansa wrote: > Afaik latest version from layer with highest priority wins. Which > doesn't always mean latest version globally. > > DEFAULT_PREFERENCE doesn't help e.g. to demote development version in some > layer with higher priority. > > But PREFERRED_VERSION does work. Thanks, Martin! I didn't expect that, but it's an explanation. Is this documented somewhere? I think OE-classic behaved differently. I noticed that "bitbake-layers show-overlayed" nicely prints the available versions in order of preference. For some packages, I don't understand the ordering though, e.g.: python-setuptools: meta-oe 0.6c11-ml3 meta 0.6c11-ml3 python-setuptools-native: meta 0.6c11-ml3 meta-oe 0.6c11-ml3 (I modified bitbake-layers to include PR in its output) The diff between both layers looks like this: --- openembedded-core/meta/recipes-devtools/python/python-setuptools_0.6c11.bb 2012-01-18 15:05:39.876945863 +0100 +++ meta-openembedded/meta-oe/recipes-devtools/python/python-setuptools_0.6c11.bb 2012-01-18 15:10:23.816943155 +0100 @@ -29,3 +29,5 @@ SRC_URI[sha256sum] = "630fea9b726320b73ee3ca6ff61732cb32675b0389be658080fe46383b87a1d3" BBCLASSEXTEND = "native" + +NATIVE_INSTALL_WORKS = "1" --- The only occurence of python-setuptools(-native) is: meta/classes/setuptools.bbclass:DEPENDS += "python-setuptools-native" Another strange one, this time with unequal versions: mpfr: meta-oe 3.0.0-r4 meta 3.1.0-r0 mpfr-native: meta 3.1.0-r0 meta-oe 3.0.0-r4 Would lowering the priority of meta-openembedded affect its ability to bbappend OE-core's recipes? Is it possible to lower its priority, or to raise the priority of OE core, without modifying conf/layer.conf in either layer? Regards, Andreas >> - The older wpa-supplicant is provided for a different machine. >> - Both bitbake and openembedded-core are from today's master branches. >> >> The problem: The machine I'm building for also picks up version 0.5.10, >> unless I eiher copy 0.7.3 from openembedded-core to my layer or delete >> version 0.5.10 from my layer. Deleting wpa-supplicant_0.7.3.bbappend >> doesn't change the behaviour.