From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.windriver.com ([147.11.1.11]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QoGS9-0004SY-0U for bitbake-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Tue, 02 Aug 2011 17:00:17 +0200 Received: from ALA-HCA.corp.ad.wrs.com (ala-hca [147.11.189.40]) by mail.windriver.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p72Ets1i018101 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 07:55:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Macintosh-5.local (172.25.36.226) by ALA-HCA.corp.ad.wrs.com (147.11.189.50) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.255.0; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 07:55:54 -0700 Message-ID: <4E380FF9.7090106@windriver.com> Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 09:55:53 -0500 From: Mark Hatle Organization: Wind River Systems User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: References: <201108021226.34560.paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> <1312293167.4325.38.camel@phil-desktop> <201108021521.38404.paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [OE-core] Layer priorities influencing default version selection X-BeenThere: bitbake-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 15:00:17 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit At Wind River, in our non bitbake based build system, the way layers work is based on ordering. The last layer listed has the highest priority. So whatever is specified in that layer (lower or higher versions) wins. All of the priority information is selected based on the equivalent of the order of entries in the BBLAYERS. However, unlike bitbake -- in the WR build system we can only have one version of a package available at any time. (There is a second level of ordering for configuration files. For instance if you are looking for foo.conf, it will search the highest priority layer first and work it's way down. If foo.conf includes itself, foo.conf, it will automatically search starting with the next lower priority layer. If you include a differently named configuration file it starts back at the highest priority layer. This is what allows a layer to provide snippets of configuration files. -- I'm not sure this is relevant to this conversation though... but I thought I'd point out a characteristic of the ordering.) --Mark On 8/2/11 9:27 AM, Chris Larson wrote: > On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 7:21 AM, Paul Eggleton > wrote: >> On Tuesday 02 August 2011 15:14:41 Chris Larson wrote: >>> as config/class priority is >>> determined by order of entries in BBLAYERS, whereas recipe priority is >>> determined by layer.conf. >> >> Is that a good thing though? At the moment I'm not convinced that it is. > > I probably could have worded my reply better. I was pointing out the > fact that the order is determined in two places right now as being one > reason why I agreed with his statement that ordering determined by the > layer isn't ideal.