From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QwXaI-0006Vy-Rm; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 12:54:55 +0200 Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 25 Aug 2011 03:50:05 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.68,280,1312182000"; d="scan'208";a="44938090" Received: from unknown (HELO helios.localnet) ([10.255.18.129]) by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 25 Aug 2011 03:50:04 -0700 From: Paul Eggleton To: bitbake-devel@lists.openembedded.org, "Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer" Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 11:50:01 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/2.6.38-10-generic-pae; KDE/4.6.2; i686; ; ) References: <201108021226.34560.paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <201108251150.01236.paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> Subject: Re: [bitbake-devel] Layer priorities influencing default version selection 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, 25 Aug 2011 10:54:55 -0000 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tuesday 02 August 2011 16:35:12 Khem Raj wrote: > On Aug 2, 2011, at 7:14 AM, Chris Larson wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 6:52 AM, Phil Blundell wrote: > >> Actually, to some extent I consider it a bit of a misfeature that the > >> layer priority is specified by the layer rather than by the user in > >> bblayers.conf, since this makes it harder to vary the stack-up order > >> without local hackery to the layer files. For example, meta-oe > >> currently sets itself to a higher priority than oe-core, but I've found > >> that it generally seems to suit me better if meta-oe is actually the > >> lower-priority layer. > > > > Agreed. It also means that the priority knowledge is split between > > layer.conf and bblayers.conf today, as config/class priority is > > determined by order of entries in BBLAYERS, whereas recipe priority is > > determined by layer.conf. > > In my opinion the layer priority for all kind of meta data should be > consistent and selected using bblayers.conf So I've thought about this more, and I don't think it is a good idea, for two reasons: 1) It increases the complexity by a huge amount. New users will have to understand how to set the priorities, and if someone reports a problem, we now not only need to know what layers they are using, we also need to know what mangling of the priorities they might have done. We'd just be introducing more potentially untested configurations (as if we don't have enough already.) 2) It just papers over real problems in meta-oe or any other layer you might choose to use on top. As I said, if meta-oe has stuff in it that is not working, it should be fixed or removed. Let's fix problems instead of finding ways of ignoring them. Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre