Openembedded Core Discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Martin Jansa <martin.jansa@gmail.com>
To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer
	<openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org>
Cc: Zhenfeng.Zhao@windriver.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] opkg 0.1.8: respect to the arch when choose the alternatives
Date: Fri, 25 May 2012 13:30:57 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120525113057.GD3138@jama.jama.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6CC0CB11-A526-457C-AC54-2D7C67E38DE2@dominion.thruhere.net>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2289 bytes --]

On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 01:19:55PM +0200, Koen Kooi wrote:
> 
> Op 25 mei 2012, om 12:02 heeft Robert Yang het volgende geschreven:
> 
> > There is a bug if we:
> > 1) bitbake core-image-sato-sdk MACHINE=qemux86
> > 2) bitbake core-image-sato with MACHINE=crownbay
> > 
> > Then several pkgs in deploy/ipk/i586 would be installed to crownbay's
> > image even if there is one in deploy/ipk/core2 and we have set the
> > core2's priority higher than i586, when the version in deploy/ipk/i586 is
> > higher. This doesn't work for us, for example, what the crownbay need is
> > xserver-xorg-1.9.3, but it installs xserver-xorg-1.11.2.
> > 
> > This is caused by opkg's selecting mechanism, if there are more than one
> > candidates which have the same pkg name in the candidate list, for
> > example, the same pkg with different versions, then it will use the last
> > one which is the highest version in the list, this doesn't work for us,
> > it should respect to the arch priorities in such a case.
> 
> This is a serious break with the current opkg behaviour and I don't think it's an improvement. Needing different versions for non machine specific packages indicates a more serious bug elsewhere.

It's not the same use-case as those 2 above, but what I don't like on
current opkg behaviour is that it doesn't "reinstall" the package with
the same version when it gets available in arch with higher priority.

e.g. I have armv7a device which has feed urls for armv4t and armv7a
(armv7a of course with higher priority).

foo-1.0 in both feeds armv4t armv7a 

opkg update && opkg install foo -> foo-1.0_armv7a

distro builder publish foo-1.0-r1 sofar only in armv4t feed

opkg update && opkg upgrade -> foo-1.0_armv7a is upgraded to foo-1.0-r1_armv4t)

distro builder publish foo-1.0-r1 also to armv7a feed

opkg update && opkg upgrade -> nothing, but "upgrading" to foo-1.0-r1_armv7a) would be better


On my distro builder I'm trying to prevent this scenario by rsyncing
feeds only after build for *all* supported machines is completed, but
that's still not really atomic operation. (And later I've also started
to filter feeds which gets available on target image).

Cheers,

-- 
Martin 'JaMa' Jansa     jabber: Martin.Jansa@gmail.com

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 205 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2012-05-25 11:41 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-05-25 10:02 [PATCH 0/1] opkg 0.1.8: respect to the arch when choose the alternatives Robert Yang
2012-05-25 10:02 ` [PATCH 1/1] " Robert Yang
2012-05-25 11:19   ` Koen Kooi
2012-05-25 11:30     ` Martin Jansa [this message]
2012-05-25 14:09       ` Richard Purdie
2012-05-26  2:47       ` Robert Yang
2012-05-26  2:54         ` Robert Yang
2012-05-26  6:28         ` Martin Jansa
2012-05-26  8:07           ` Koen Kooi
2012-05-26  8:47             ` Robert Yang
2012-05-26  8:15           ` Robert Yang
2012-05-26  8:19             ` Martin Jansa
2012-05-26  8:35               ` Robert Yang
2012-05-26  8:42                 ` Martin Jansa
2012-05-26  2:25     ` Robert Yang
2012-05-26  5:24   ` Robert Yang
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2012-05-31 14:13 [PATCH 0/1] V2 " Robert Yang
2012-05-31 14:13 ` [PATCH 1/1] " Robert Yang
2012-05-31 15:01   ` Koen Kooi
2012-06-01  0:23     ` Robert Yang
2012-06-01  8:17     ` Richard Purdie
2012-06-01  9:04       ` Koen Kooi
2012-06-01 10:02         ` Richard Purdie
2012-06-01 10:35           ` Koen Kooi
2012-06-04  9:31             ` Robert Yang
2012-06-04 10:39               ` Martin Jansa
2012-06-04 14:38                 ` Koen Kooi

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20120525113057.GD3138@jama.jama.net \
    --to=martin.jansa@gmail.com \
    --cc=Zhenfeng.Zhao@windriver.com \
    --cc=openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox