From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dan.rpsys.net (5751f4a1.skybroadband.com [87.81.244.161]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D885761B2; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 21:50:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dan.rpsys.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id t6NLoTl9015886; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 22:50:56 +0100 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 ESoFOskIf3Ki; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 22:50:56 +0100 (BST) Received: from [192.168.3.10] ([192.168.3.10]) (authenticated bits=0) by dan.rpsys.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id t6NLoh3c015942 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 23 Jul 2015 22:50:54 +0100 Message-ID: <1437688243.821.139.camel@linuxfoundation.org> From: Richard Purdie To: Jate Sujjavanich Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 22:50:43 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.10-0ubuntu1~14.10.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: bitbake-devel@lists.openembedded.org, openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3][0/2] Yocto Bug #6149 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: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 21:51:01 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thu, 2015-07-23 at 17:32 -0400, Jate Sujjavanich wrote: > These patches add code to handle a PREFERRED_PROVIDER for a runtime > item. > > The providers.py code chooses a recipe based on a runtime package to > resolve the multiple providers warning. > > Then during package generation, the new image.bbclass code substitutes > the package into PACKAGE_INSTALL that RPROVIDES the runtime item if > the PREFERRED_PROVIDER is defined. > What this doesn't do is fix the problem where one of these names is used in a packagegroup or some other place than PACKAGE_INSTALL. I believe I mentioned this the last time you sent patches as well. Due to that, it would lead to gross inconsistencies in the way the system would behave and it can't be merged as is, sorry. Cheers, Richard >