Re: [PATCH 1/1] opkg 0.1.8: respect to the arch when choose the alternatives

[Martin Jansa <martin.jansa@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3448 bytes --]

On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 10:47:31AM +0800, Robert Yang wrote:
> 
> 
> On 05/25/2012 07:30 PM, Martin Jansa wrote:
> > 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
> 
> Hi Martin,
> 
> They are the same cases:-), I think that this patch has also fixed your problem,

No, at least not completely the same.

I would prefer to upgrade foo-1.0-r1_armv4t temporary until
foo-1.0-r1_armv7a gets available in feed and that won't happen with your
patch AFAIK.

with your patch:
If you have bar-1.0 which has to be MACHINE_ARCH and in 2.0 bar
developers find way to detect and use all machine capabilities in
runtime, recipe maintainer will switch to TUNE_ARCH, then 
foo-1.0_nokia900.ipk won't be ever upgraded to foo-2.0_armv7a.ipk 
and that's bad.

Cheers,

> the foo-1.0_armv7a will be kept now.
> 
> // Robert
> 
> > 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,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Openembedded-core mailing list
> > Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core

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

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