From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dan.rpsys.net (dan.rpsys.net [93.97.175.187]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C21CA6D092 for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 15:15:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (dan.rpsys.net [127.0.0.1]) by dan.rpsys.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-2.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id r9UFFKhW021624; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 15:15:21 GMT X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at dan.rpsys.net Received: from dan.rpsys.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (dan.rpsys.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id gx3D9TOkFrua; Wed, 30 Oct 2013 15:15:20 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [192.168.3.10] (rpvlan0 [192.168.3.10]) (authenticated bits=0) by dan.rpsys.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-2.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id r9UFFGad021605 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 30 Oct 2013 15:15:18 GMT Message-ID: <1383146112.25877.34.camel@ted> From: Richard Purdie To: Eric =?ISO-8859-1?Q?B=E9nard?= Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 15:15:12 +0000 In-Reply-To: <20131029082852.4399ee5e@e6520eb> References: <1381358545.29912.50.camel@ted> <20131028151004.34b2af21@e6520eb> <20131029082852.4399ee5e@e6520eb> X-Mailer: Evolution 3.6.4-0ubuntu1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: openembedded-core Subject: Re: SRC_URI computing order X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 15:15:37 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Tue, 2013-10-29 at 08:28 +0100, Eric Bénard wrote: > Hi Khem, > > Le Mon, 28 Oct 2013 20:45:21 -0700, > Khem Raj a écrit : > > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Eric Bénard wrote: > > > Hi Richard, > > > > > > I saw your patch fixing FILESPATH's and Kergoth's one fixing > > > PACKAGECONFIG processing order and I think I'm also facing an order > > > problem when SRC_URI is computed. > > > > > > So when building SRC_URI when two layers have bbappend which apply > > > patches : the SRC_URI seems to be built using an order I fail to > > > understand somewhere instead of priority or the overrides' order. > > > > > > The use case is a System on Module and its custom motherboard : > > > - meta-fsl-arm : > > > * linux-imx_xyz.bb : > > > SRC_URI = "patchgeneric1 ..." > > > > > > - meta-som-support : > > > * conf/machine/mysom.conf > > > > > > * linux-imx_xyz.bbappend : > > > SRC_URI_append_mysom = "patchsom1 patchsom2 ..." > > > > > > - meta-custommotherboard (SOM + Cunstom Motherboard) : > > > * conf/machine/myproduct.conf > > > MACHINEOVERRIDES_prepend = "mysom:" > > > include conf/machine/mysom.conf > > > > > > * linux-imx_xyz.bbappend : > > > SRC_URI_append_myproduct = "patchproduct1 patchproduct2 ..." > > > > > > in the end I get : > > > SRC_URI = "patchgeneric1 ... patchsoc1 ... patchproduct1 ... > > > patchsom1 ..." > > > > > > and of course as patchproduct* are supposed to apply on top of > > > patchsoc* the patch fail to apply. > > > > > > I didn't found a way to build SRC_URI in the order I would like (I > > > tested : changing MACHINEOVERRIDES 's order, changing layers' priority, > > > changing machine's name to see if that was an alphabetical order ...). > > > > > > In the end the only thing which worked was to add an (empty by default) > > > variable in som's SRC_URI and filling this variables from the > > > custommotherboard's bbappend. > > > > > > Is the behaviour I'm seeing expected or is there something wrong in my > > > setup ? > > > > what is your OVERRIDES order. > > > "${TARGET_OS}:${TRANSLATED_TARGET_ARCH}:build-${BUILD_OS}:pn-${PN}:${MACHINEOVERRIDES}:${DISTROOVERRIDES}:${CLASSOVERRIDE}:forcevariable" > > so it follows the MACHINEOVERRIDES order (and I tried both append and > prepend to hack MACHINEOVERRIDES without any behaviour change). I think what Khem is asking is what OVERRIDES expands to? You mean patchso* and not patchsoc* above, right? Or should patchsom1 be patchsoc2? Its hard to follow and it might be easier if you could share a simplified test case we could reproduce this with. I don't doubt there is an issue in there but we need a way to reproduce and debug this. Cheers, Richard