From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f68.google.com (mail-wm0-f68.google.com [74.125.82.68]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFF2A6E660 for ; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 14:02:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wm0-f68.google.com with SMTP id y80so21485402wmd.0 for ; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 06:02:37 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=3bwMcFVfNhul3vScFaKvNhKyJHeL5EsLXGkeYOYS+vI=; b=mzjw6NBw1PUEDkz5yt05qSjasuKCg3mpnq6aNQ7pKdSpSgl9R7lsSaQI36YX8pA7pw 16zdJ08ys6q8Wy87ldgau/L6hG8K/xcElNohFjAgYMOe3NK/PBj0iVAqC9SOlsOPMX1N RSx/25gK6IHh+3EOcMNPatjT6Knis2RUlO6yBLJad6J0DEo46Yhil0A4EYKxu29PmVLT sTEKtp/i5RvHEDdSKxK5bJoKw1BTuBQd2NzuaasllNjbR/KvxDqZTugLqXN6CnXMT/EU 9eyePsp6z/brfToA5hRPinmNyoXODhapWtLzrdptP2TIGXei0X3i250EKIEseCwjzhXl bcYg== X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX7iyNy7GtSM0Jb55dUh1WW1Z1RWIC5x7HQKH0+6Q0QZvREsXjGz egz0jwT8rksbacE3gdworQI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMblO7NbsmN5n4clIwDGij5WANQHHt1oqTOHTxYsWIDe9rQNnuMU/q/riG6l52Pd+bp3jok3Ig== X-Received: by 10.80.138.148 with SMTP id j20mr17497890edj.111.1510668155486; Tue, 14 Nov 2017 06:02:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from tfsielt31850 ([77.107.218.170]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id b17sm15648703edj.21.2017.11.14.06.02.33 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Tue, 14 Nov 2017 06:02:34 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <1510668148.4049.71.camel@andred.net> From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9?= Draszik To: "Burton, Ross" Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 14:02:28 +0000 In-Reply-To: References: <62db9387c3ee71f4bed87a7a546afdf927ba5ac0.1510550741.git.Qi.Chen@windriver.com> <1510563249.4049.33.camel@andred.net> <1510654568.4049.64.camel@andred.net> X-Mailer: Evolution 3.26.1-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: OE-core Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] autoconf-archive: inherit allarch and fix package splitting 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: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 14:02:36 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tue, 2017-11-14 at 11:41 +0000, Burton, Ross wrote: > On 14 November 2017 at 11:34, Burton, Ross wrote: > > > But don't we remove the old version from the feeds, or does that only > > happen if the arch matches? > > > > Well the feed pruning is working correctly: Not for me. I created a dummy package foo_0.1.bb, with PACKAGE_ARCH = "${MACHINE_ARCH}" after bitbake foo: $ build.pyro > find tmp/deploy/ipk/ -name foo*ipk tmp/deploy/ipk/tgm_r3/f/foo/foo-dbg_0.1-r0_tgm_r3.ipk tmp/deploy/ipk/tgm_r3/f/foo/foo-dev_0.1-r0_tgm_r3.ipk tmp/deploy/ipk/tgm_r3/f/foo/foo_0.1-r0_tgm_r3.ipk Removing the PACKAGE_ARCH line from that recipe and rebuilding foo gives me: $ build.pyro > find tmp/deploy/ipk/ -name foo*ipk tmp/deploy/ipk/mips32r2el-24kec-nf/f/foo/foo-dbg_0.1-r0_mips32r2el-24kec- nf.ipk tmp/deploy/ipk/mips32r2el-24kec-nf/f/foo/foo-dev_0.1-r0_mips32r2el-24kec- nf.ipk tmp/deploy/ipk/mips32r2el-24kec-nf/f/foo/foo_0.1-r0_mips32r2el-24kec-nf.ipk tmp/deploy/ipk/tgm_r3/f/foo/foo-dbg_0.1-r0_tgm_r3.ipk tmp/deploy/ipk/tgm_r3/f/foo/foo-dev_0.1-r0_tgm_r3.ipk tmp/deploy/ipk/tgm_r3/f/foo/foo_0.1-r0_tgm_r3.ipk If I bump the version, I am still left with the MACHINE_ARCH packages (doesn't matter if I bump the version before or after the change to PACKAGE_ARCH): $ build.pyro > find tmp/deploy/ipk/ -name foo*ipk tmp/deploy/ipk/mips32r2el-24kec-nf/f/foo/foo-dbg_0.2-r0_mips32r2el-24kec- nf.ipk tmp/deploy/ipk/mips32r2el-24kec-nf/f/foo/foo-dev_0.2-r0_mips32r2el-24kec- nf.ipk tmp/deploy/ipk/mips32r2el-24kec-nf/f/foo/foo_0.2-r0_mips32r2el-24kec-nf.ipk tmp/deploy/ipk/tgm_r3/f/foo/foo-dbg_0.1-r0_tgm_r3.ipk tmp/deploy/ipk/tgm_r3/f/foo/foo-dev_0.1-r0_tgm_r3.ipk tmp/deploy/ipk/tgm_r3/f/foo/foo_0.1-r0_tgm_r3.ipk So of course do_rootfs will pick the outdated version. Is that an ipk / OPKG issue? Should something be removing the old packages from deploy? Cheers, Andre'