* [PATCH] utils.bbclass: Fix override ordering for FILESPATH @ 2013-10-09 22:42 Richard Purdie 2013-10-28 14:10 ` SRC_URI computing order Eric Bénard 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Richard Purdie @ 2013-10-09 22:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: openembedded-core Currently the overrides are being applied backwards. This means something which is platform specific is overriding something which is machine specific which is clearly not intended. This patch corrects the ordering to match the normal expected behaviour of OVERRIDES. Secondly, all overrides are being searched for each path in turn. What should really happen is that we should look for the highest priority override (e.g. distro or machine) in each layer, then move on to platform/tune (e.g. armv7a) and then to arch (e.g. arm). This patch therefore also reverses the for loops to achieve this behaviour and give the result the user would expect. Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> --- diff --git a/meta/classes/utils.bbclass b/meta/classes/utils.bbclass index d1f6563..0a533af 100644 --- a/meta/classes/utils.bbclass +++ b/meta/classes/utils.bbclass @@ -307,10 +307,11 @@ def base_set_filespath(path, d): if extrapaths != "": path = extrapaths.split(":") + path # The ":" ensures we have an 'empty' override - overrides = ((d.getVar("FILESOVERRIDES", True) or "") + ":").split(":") - for p in path: - if p != "": - for o in overrides: + overrides = (":" + (d.getVar("FILESOVERRIDES", True) or "")).split(":") + overrides.reverse() + for o in overrides: + for p in path: + if p != "": filespath.append(os.path.join(p, o)) return ":".join(filespath) ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* SRC_URI computing order 2013-10-09 22:42 [PATCH] utils.bbclass: Fix override ordering for FILESPATH Richard Purdie @ 2013-10-28 14:10 ` Eric Bénard 2013-10-29 3:45 ` Khem Raj 2013-11-01 15:36 ` Eric Bénard 0 siblings, 2 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Eric Bénard @ 2013-10-28 14:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Purdie; +Cc: openembedded-core Hi Richard, I saw your patch fixing FILESPATH's and Kergoth's one fixing PACKAGECONFIG processing order and I think I'm also facing an order problem when SRC_URI is computed. So when building SRC_URI when two layers have bbappend which apply patches : the SRC_URI seems to be built using an order I fail to understand somewhere instead of priority or the overrides' order. The use case is a System on Module and its custom motherboard : - meta-fsl-arm : * linux-imx_xyz.bb : SRC_URI = "patchgeneric1 ..." - meta-som-support : * conf/machine/mysom.conf * linux-imx_xyz.bbappend : SRC_URI_append_mysom = "patchsom1 patchsom2 ..." - meta-custommotherboard (SOM + Cunstom Motherboard) : * conf/machine/myproduct.conf MACHINEOVERRIDES_prepend = "mysom:" include conf/machine/mysom.conf * linux-imx_xyz.bbappend : SRC_URI_append_myproduct = "patchproduct1 patchproduct2 ..." in the end I get : SRC_URI = "patchgeneric1 ... patchsoc1 ... patchproduct1 ... patchsom1 ..." and of course as patchproduct* are supposed to apply on top of patchsoc* the patch fail to apply. I didn't found a way to build SRC_URI in the order I would like (I tested : changing MACHINEOVERRIDES 's order, changing layers' priority, changing machine's name to see if that was an alphabetical order ...). In the end the only thing which worked was to add an (empty by default) variable in som's SRC_URI and filling this variables from the custommotherboard's bbappend. Is the behaviour I'm seeing expected or is there something wrong in my setup ? Thanks, Eric ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: SRC_URI computing order 2013-10-28 14:10 ` SRC_URI computing order Eric Bénard @ 2013-10-29 3:45 ` Khem Raj 2013-10-29 7:28 ` Eric Bénard 2013-11-01 15:36 ` Eric Bénard 1 sibling, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Khem Raj @ 2013-10-29 3:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eric Bénard; +Cc: openembedded-core On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Eric Bénard <eric@eukrea.com> wrote: > Hi Richard, > > I saw your patch fixing FILESPATH's and Kergoth's one fixing > PACKAGECONFIG processing order and I think I'm also facing an order > problem when SRC_URI is computed. > > So when building SRC_URI when two layers have bbappend which apply > patches : the SRC_URI seems to be built using an order I fail to > understand somewhere instead of priority or the overrides' order. > > The use case is a System on Module and its custom motherboard : > - meta-fsl-arm : > * linux-imx_xyz.bb : > SRC_URI = "patchgeneric1 ..." > > - meta-som-support : > * conf/machine/mysom.conf > > * linux-imx_xyz.bbappend : > SRC_URI_append_mysom = "patchsom1 patchsom2 ..." > > - meta-custommotherboard (SOM + Cunstom Motherboard) : > * conf/machine/myproduct.conf > MACHINEOVERRIDES_prepend = "mysom:" > include conf/machine/mysom.conf > > * linux-imx_xyz.bbappend : > SRC_URI_append_myproduct = "patchproduct1 patchproduct2 ..." > > in the end I get : > SRC_URI = "patchgeneric1 ... patchsoc1 ... patchproduct1 ... > patchsom1 ..." > > and of course as patchproduct* are supposed to apply on top of > patchsoc* the patch fail to apply. > > I didn't found a way to build SRC_URI in the order I would like (I > tested : changing MACHINEOVERRIDES 's order, changing layers' priority, > changing machine's name to see if that was an alphabetical order ...). > > In the end the only thing which worked was to add an (empty by default) > variable in som's SRC_URI and filling this variables from the > custommotherboard's bbappend. > > Is the behaviour I'm seeing expected or is there something wrong in my > setup ? what is your OVERRIDES order. > > Thanks, > Eric > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-core mailing list > Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: SRC_URI computing order 2013-10-29 3:45 ` Khem Raj @ 2013-10-29 7:28 ` Eric Bénard 2013-10-30 15:15 ` Richard Purdie 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Eric Bénard @ 2013-10-29 7:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Khem Raj; +Cc: openembedded-core Hi Khem, Le Mon, 28 Oct 2013 20:45:21 -0700, Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> a écrit : > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Eric Bénard <eric@eukrea.com> wrote: > > Hi Richard, > > > > I saw your patch fixing FILESPATH's and Kergoth's one fixing > > PACKAGECONFIG processing order and I think I'm also facing an order > > problem when SRC_URI is computed. > > > > So when building SRC_URI when two layers have bbappend which apply > > patches : the SRC_URI seems to be built using an order I fail to > > understand somewhere instead of priority or the overrides' order. > > > > The use case is a System on Module and its custom motherboard : > > - meta-fsl-arm : > > * linux-imx_xyz.bb : > > SRC_URI = "patchgeneric1 ..." > > > > - meta-som-support : > > * conf/machine/mysom.conf > > > > * linux-imx_xyz.bbappend : > > SRC_URI_append_mysom = "patchsom1 patchsom2 ..." > > > > - meta-custommotherboard (SOM + Cunstom Motherboard) : > > * conf/machine/myproduct.conf > > MACHINEOVERRIDES_prepend = "mysom:" > > include conf/machine/mysom.conf > > > > * linux-imx_xyz.bbappend : > > SRC_URI_append_myproduct = "patchproduct1 patchproduct2 ..." > > > > in the end I get : > > SRC_URI = "patchgeneric1 ... patchsoc1 ... patchproduct1 ... > > patchsom1 ..." > > > > and of course as patchproduct* are supposed to apply on top of > > patchsoc* the patch fail to apply. > > > > I didn't found a way to build SRC_URI in the order I would like (I > > tested : changing MACHINEOVERRIDES 's order, changing layers' priority, > > changing machine's name to see if that was an alphabetical order ...). > > > > In the end the only thing which worked was to add an (empty by default) > > variable in som's SRC_URI and filling this variables from the > > custommotherboard's bbappend. > > > > Is the behaviour I'm seeing expected or is there something wrong in my > > setup ? > > what is your OVERRIDES order. > "${TARGET_OS}:${TRANSLATED_TARGET_ARCH}:build-${BUILD_OS}:pn-${PN}:${MACHINEOVERRIDES}:${DISTROOVERRIDES}:${CLASSOVERRIDE}:forcevariable" so it follows the MACHINEOVERRIDES order (and I tried both append and prepend to hack MACHINEOVERRIDES without any behaviour change). Eric ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: SRC_URI computing order 2013-10-29 7:28 ` Eric Bénard @ 2013-10-30 15:15 ` Richard Purdie 2013-11-02 8:47 ` Eric Bénard 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Richard Purdie @ 2013-10-30 15:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eric Bénard; +Cc: openembedded-core On Tue, 2013-10-29 at 08:28 +0100, Eric Bénard wrote: > Hi Khem, > > Le Mon, 28 Oct 2013 20:45:21 -0700, > Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> a écrit : > > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Eric Bénard <eric@eukrea.com> wrote: > > > Hi Richard, > > > > > > I saw your patch fixing FILESPATH's and Kergoth's one fixing > > > PACKAGECONFIG processing order and I think I'm also facing an order > > > problem when SRC_URI is computed. > > > > > > So when building SRC_URI when two layers have bbappend which apply > > > patches : the SRC_URI seems to be built using an order I fail to > > > understand somewhere instead of priority or the overrides' order. > > > > > > The use case is a System on Module and its custom motherboard : > > > - meta-fsl-arm : > > > * linux-imx_xyz.bb : > > > SRC_URI = "patchgeneric1 ..." > > > > > > - meta-som-support : > > > * conf/machine/mysom.conf > > > > > > * linux-imx_xyz.bbappend : > > > SRC_URI_append_mysom = "patchsom1 patchsom2 ..." > > > > > > - meta-custommotherboard (SOM + Cunstom Motherboard) : > > > * conf/machine/myproduct.conf > > > MACHINEOVERRIDES_prepend = "mysom:" > > > include conf/machine/mysom.conf > > > > > > * linux-imx_xyz.bbappend : > > > SRC_URI_append_myproduct = "patchproduct1 patchproduct2 ..." > > > > > > in the end I get : > > > SRC_URI = "patchgeneric1 ... patchsoc1 ... patchproduct1 ... > > > patchsom1 ..." > > > > > > and of course as patchproduct* are supposed to apply on top of > > > patchsoc* the patch fail to apply. > > > > > > I didn't found a way to build SRC_URI in the order I would like (I > > > tested : changing MACHINEOVERRIDES 's order, changing layers' priority, > > > changing machine's name to see if that was an alphabetical order ...). > > > > > > In the end the only thing which worked was to add an (empty by default) > > > variable in som's SRC_URI and filling this variables from the > > > custommotherboard's bbappend. > > > > > > Is the behaviour I'm seeing expected or is there something wrong in my > > > setup ? > > > > what is your OVERRIDES order. > > > "${TARGET_OS}:${TRANSLATED_TARGET_ARCH}:build-${BUILD_OS}:pn-${PN}:${MACHINEOVERRIDES}:${DISTROOVERRIDES}:${CLASSOVERRIDE}:forcevariable" > > so it follows the MACHINEOVERRIDES order (and I tried both append and > prepend to hack MACHINEOVERRIDES without any behaviour change). I think what Khem is asking is what OVERRIDES expands to? You mean patchso* and not patchsoc* above, right? Or should patchsom1 be patchsoc2? Its hard to follow and it might be easier if you could share a simplified test case we could reproduce this with. I don't doubt there is an issue in there but we need a way to reproduce and debug this. Cheers, Richard ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: SRC_URI computing order 2013-10-30 15:15 ` Richard Purdie @ 2013-11-02 8:47 ` Eric Bénard 2013-11-03 22:16 ` Andrea Adami 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Eric Bénard @ 2013-11-02 8:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Purdie; +Cc: openembedded-core Hi Richard, Le Wed, 30 Oct 2013 15:15:12 +0000, Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> a écrit : > On Tue, 2013-10-29 at 08:28 +0100, Eric Bénard wrote: > > Hi Khem, > > > > Le Mon, 28 Oct 2013 20:45:21 -0700, > > Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> a écrit : > > > > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Eric Bénard <eric@eukrea.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Richard, > > > > > > > > I saw your patch fixing FILESPATH's and Kergoth's one fixing > > > > PACKAGECONFIG processing order and I think I'm also facing an order > > > > problem when SRC_URI is computed. > > > > > > > > So when building SRC_URI when two layers have bbappend which apply > > > > patches : the SRC_URI seems to be built using an order I fail to > > > > understand somewhere instead of priority or the overrides' order. > > > > > > > > The use case is a System on Module and its custom motherboard : > > > > - meta-fsl-arm : > > > > * linux-imx_xyz.bb : > > > > SRC_URI = "patchgeneric1 ..." > > > > > > > > - meta-som-support : > > > > * conf/machine/mysom.conf > > > > > > > > * linux-imx_xyz.bbappend : > > > > SRC_URI_append_mysom = "patchsom1 patchsom2 ..." > > > > > > > > - meta-custommotherboard (SOM + Cunstom Motherboard) : > > > > * conf/machine/myproduct.conf > > > > MACHINEOVERRIDES_prepend = "mysom:" > > > > include conf/machine/mysom.conf > > > > > > > > * linux-imx_xyz.bbappend : > > > > SRC_URI_append_myproduct = "patchproduct1 patchproduct2 ..." > > > > > > > > in the end I get : > > > > SRC_URI = "patchgeneric1 ... patchsoc1 ... patchproduct1 ... > > > > patchsom1 ..." > > > > > > > > and of course as patchproduct* are supposed to apply on top of > > > > patchsoc* the patch fail to apply. > > > > > > > > I didn't found a way to build SRC_URI in the order I would like (I > > > > tested : changing MACHINEOVERRIDES 's order, changing layers' priority, > > > > changing machine's name to see if that was an alphabetical order ...). > > > > > > > > In the end the only thing which worked was to add an (empty by default) > > > > variable in som's SRC_URI and filling this variables from the > > > > custommotherboard's bbappend. > > > > > > > > Is the behaviour I'm seeing expected or is there something wrong in my > > > > setup ? > > > > > > what is your OVERRIDES order. > > > > > "${TARGET_OS}:${TRANSLATED_TARGET_ARCH}:build-${BUILD_OS}:pn-${PN}:${MACHINEOVERRIDES}:${DISTROOVERRIDES}:${CLASSOVERRIDE}:forcevariable" > > > > so it follows the MACHINEOVERRIDES order (and I tried both append and > > prepend to hack MACHINEOVERRIDES without any behaviour change). > > I think what Khem is asking is what OVERRIDES expands to? > > You mean patchso* and not patchsoc* above, right? Or should patchsom1 be > patchsoc2? > oops : I expect SRC_URI = "patchgeneric1 ... patchsom1 ... patchproduct1 ..." and I get : SRC_URI = "patchgeneric1 ... patchproduct1 ... patchsom1 ..." > Its hard to follow and it might be easier if you could share a > simplified test case we could reproduce this with. I don't doubt there > is an issue in there but we need a way to reproduce and debug this. > OK, I'm preparing a simple testcase to reproduce that with oe-core + meta-fsl-arm + meta-som + meta-baseboard. Eric ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: SRC_URI computing order 2013-11-02 8:47 ` Eric Bénard @ 2013-11-03 22:16 ` Andrea Adami 2013-11-03 23:10 ` Richard Purdie 2013-11-04 8:33 ` Eric Bénard 0 siblings, 2 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Andrea Adami @ 2013-11-03 22:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eric Bénard; +Cc: openembedded-core On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Eric Bénard <eric@eukrea.com> wrote: > Hi Richard, > > Le Wed, 30 Oct 2013 15:15:12 +0000, > Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> a écrit : > >> On Tue, 2013-10-29 at 08:28 +0100, Eric Bénard wrote: >> > Hi Khem, >> > >> > Le Mon, 28 Oct 2013 20:45:21 -0700, >> > Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> a écrit : >> > >> > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Eric Bénard <eric@eukrea.com> wrote: >> > > > Hi Richard, >> > > > >> > > > I saw your patch fixing FILESPATH's and Kergoth's one fixing >> > > > PACKAGECONFIG processing order and I think I'm also facing an order >> > > > problem when SRC_URI is computed. >> > > > >> > > > So when building SRC_URI when two layers have bbappend which apply >> > > > patches : the SRC_URI seems to be built using an order I fail to >> > > > understand somewhere instead of priority or the overrides' order. >> > > > >> > > > The use case is a System on Module and its custom motherboard : >> > > > - meta-fsl-arm : >> > > > * linux-imx_xyz.bb : >> > > > SRC_URI = "patchgeneric1 ..." >> > > > >> > > > - meta-som-support : >> > > > * conf/machine/mysom.conf >> > > > >> > > > * linux-imx_xyz.bbappend : >> > > > SRC_URI_append_mysom = "patchsom1 patchsom2 ..." >> > > > >> > > > - meta-custommotherboard (SOM + Cunstom Motherboard) : >> > > > * conf/machine/myproduct.conf >> > > > MACHINEOVERRIDES_prepend = "mysom:" >> > > > include conf/machine/mysom.conf >> > > > >> > > > * linux-imx_xyz.bbappend : >> > > > SRC_URI_append_myproduct = "patchproduct1 patchproduct2 ..." >> > > > >> > > > in the end I get : >> > > > SRC_URI = "patchgeneric1 ... patchsoc1 ... patchproduct1 ... >> > > > patchsom1 ..." >> > > > >> > > > and of course as patchproduct* are supposed to apply on top of >> > > > patchsoc* the patch fail to apply. >> > > > >> > > > I didn't found a way to build SRC_URI in the order I would like (I >> > > > tested : changing MACHINEOVERRIDES 's order, changing layers' priority, >> > > > changing machine's name to see if that was an alphabetical order ...). >> > > > >> > > > In the end the only thing which worked was to add an (empty by default) >> > > > variable in som's SRC_URI and filling this variables from the >> > > > custommotherboard's bbappend. >> > > > >> > > > Is the behaviour I'm seeing expected or is there something wrong in my >> > > > setup ? >> > > >> > > what is your OVERRIDES order. >> > > >> > "${TARGET_OS}:${TRANSLATED_TARGET_ARCH}:build-${BUILD_OS}:pn-${PN}:${MACHINEOVERRIDES}:${DISTROOVERRIDES}:${CLASSOVERRIDE}:forcevariable" >> > >> > so it follows the MACHINEOVERRIDES order (and I tried both append and >> > prepend to hack MACHINEOVERRIDES without any behaviour change). >> >> I think what Khem is asking is what OVERRIDES expands to? >> >> You mean patchso* and not patchsoc* above, right? Or should patchsom1 be >> patchsoc2? >> > oops : > I expect SRC_URI = "patchgeneric1 ... patchsom1 ... patchproduct1 ..." > and I get : > SRC_URI = "patchgeneric1 ... patchproduct1 ... patchsom1 ..." > >> Its hard to follow and it might be easier if you could share a >> simplified test case we could reproduce this with. I don't doubt there >> is an issue in there but we need a way to reproduce and debug this. >> > OK, I'm preparing a simple testcase to reproduce that with oe-core + > meta-fsl-arm + meta-som + meta-baseboard. > > Eric > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-core mailing list > Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core I have to report an undesiderate behavior: the formfactor files in our .bbappend are not considered :/ DEBUG: Searching for machconfig in paths:.... /oe/oe-core/meta/recipes-bsp/formfactor/formfactor-0.0/ /oe/oe-core/meta/recipes-bsp/formfactor/formfactor/ /oe/oe-core/meta/recipes-bsp/formfactor/files/ /oe/meta-handheld/recipes-bsp/formfactor/files/poodle so we end up with the empty machconfig of /oe/oe-core/meta/recipes-bsp/formfactor/files/ Surely this didn't happen when we tested the recipe. Cheers Andrea ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: SRC_URI computing order 2013-11-03 22:16 ` Andrea Adami @ 2013-11-03 23:10 ` Richard Purdie 2013-11-04 22:13 ` Andrea Adami 2013-11-04 8:33 ` Eric Bénard 1 sibling, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Richard Purdie @ 2013-11-03 23:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andrea Adami; +Cc: openembedded-core On Sun, 2013-11-03 at 23:16 +0100, Andrea Adami wrote: > On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Eric Bénard <eric@eukrea.com> wrote: > > Hi Richard, > > > > Le Wed, 30 Oct 2013 15:15:12 +0000, > > Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> a écrit : > > > >> On Tue, 2013-10-29 at 08:28 +0100, Eric Bénard wrote: > >> > Hi Khem, > >> > > >> > Le Mon, 28 Oct 2013 20:45:21 -0700, > >> > Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> a écrit : > >> > > >> > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Eric Bénard <eric@eukrea.com> wrote: > >> > > > Hi Richard, > >> > > > > >> > > > I saw your patch fixing FILESPATH's and Kergoth's one fixing > >> > > > PACKAGECONFIG processing order and I think I'm also facing an order > >> > > > problem when SRC_URI is computed. > >> > > > > >> > > > So when building SRC_URI when two layers have bbappend which apply > >> > > > patches : the SRC_URI seems to be built using an order I fail to > >> > > > understand somewhere instead of priority or the overrides' order. > >> > > > > >> > > > The use case is a System on Module and its custom motherboard : > >> > > > - meta-fsl-arm : > >> > > > * linux-imx_xyz.bb : > >> > > > SRC_URI = "patchgeneric1 ..." > >> > > > > >> > > > - meta-som-support : > >> > > > * conf/machine/mysom.conf > >> > > > > >> > > > * linux-imx_xyz.bbappend : > >> > > > SRC_URI_append_mysom = "patchsom1 patchsom2 ..." > >> > > > > >> > > > - meta-custommotherboard (SOM + Cunstom Motherboard) : > >> > > > * conf/machine/myproduct.conf > >> > > > MACHINEOVERRIDES_prepend = "mysom:" > >> > > > include conf/machine/mysom.conf > >> > > > > >> > > > * linux-imx_xyz.bbappend : > >> > > > SRC_URI_append_myproduct = "patchproduct1 patchproduct2 ..." > >> > > > > >> > > > in the end I get : > >> > > > SRC_URI = "patchgeneric1 ... patchsoc1 ... patchproduct1 ... > >> > > > patchsom1 ..." > >> > > > > >> > > > and of course as patchproduct* are supposed to apply on top of > >> > > > patchsoc* the patch fail to apply. > >> > > > > >> > > > I didn't found a way to build SRC_URI in the order I would like (I > >> > > > tested : changing MACHINEOVERRIDES 's order, changing layers' priority, > >> > > > changing machine's name to see if that was an alphabetical order ...). > >> > > > > >> > > > In the end the only thing which worked was to add an (empty by default) > >> > > > variable in som's SRC_URI and filling this variables from the > >> > > > custommotherboard's bbappend. > >> > > > > >> > > > Is the behaviour I'm seeing expected or is there something wrong in my > >> > > > setup ? > >> > > > >> > > what is your OVERRIDES order. > >> > > > >> > "${TARGET_OS}:${TRANSLATED_TARGET_ARCH}:build-${BUILD_OS}:pn-${PN}:${MACHINEOVERRIDES}:${DISTROOVERRIDES}:${CLASSOVERRIDE}:forcevariable" > >> > > >> > so it follows the MACHINEOVERRIDES order (and I tried both append and > >> > prepend to hack MACHINEOVERRIDES without any behaviour change). > >> > >> I think what Khem is asking is what OVERRIDES expands to? > >> > >> You mean patchso* and not patchsoc* above, right? Or should patchsom1 be > >> patchsoc2? > >> > > oops : > > I expect SRC_URI = "patchgeneric1 ... patchsom1 ... patchproduct1 ..." > > and I get : > > SRC_URI = "patchgeneric1 ... patchproduct1 ... patchsom1 ..." > > > >> Its hard to follow and it might be easier if you could share a > >> simplified test case we could reproduce this with. I don't doubt there > >> is an issue in there but we need a way to reproduce and debug this. > >> > > OK, I'm preparing a simple testcase to reproduce that with oe-core + > > meta-fsl-arm + meta-som + meta-baseboard. > > > > Eric > > _______________________________________________ > > Openembedded-core mailing list > > Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org > > http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core > > > I have to report an undesiderate behavior: > > the formfactor files in our .bbappend are not considered :/ > DEBUG: Searching for machconfig in paths:.... > /oe/oe-core/meta/recipes-bsp/formfactor/formfactor-0.0/ > /oe/oe-core/meta/recipes-bsp/formfactor/formfactor/ > /oe/oe-core/meta/recipes-bsp/formfactor/files/ > /oe/meta-handheld/recipes-bsp/formfactor/files/poodle > > so we end up with the empty machconfig of > /oe/oe-core/meta/recipes-bsp/formfactor/files/ > > Surely this didn't happen when we tested the recipe. With which revision of OE-Core? Was this with the dora release tag, current dora head or master? Cheers, Richard ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: SRC_URI computing order 2013-11-03 23:10 ` Richard Purdie @ 2013-11-04 22:13 ` Andrea Adami 2013-11-06 8:45 ` Andrea Adami 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Andrea Adami @ 2013-11-04 22:13 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Purdie, openembeded-devel, openembedded-core On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 12:10 AM, Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Sun, 2013-11-03 at 23:16 +0100, Andrea Adami wrote: >> On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Eric Bénard <eric@eukrea.com> wrote: >> > Hi Richard, >> > >> > Le Wed, 30 Oct 2013 15:15:12 +0000, >> > Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> a écrit : >> > >> >> On Tue, 2013-10-29 at 08:28 +0100, Eric Bénard wrote: >> >> > Hi Khem, >> >> > >> >> > Le Mon, 28 Oct 2013 20:45:21 -0700, >> >> > Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> a écrit : >> >> > >> >> > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Eric Bénard <eric@eukrea.com> wrote: >> >> > > > Hi Richard, >> >> > > > >> >> > > > I saw your patch fixing FILESPATH's and Kergoth's one fixing >> >> > > > PACKAGECONFIG processing order and I think I'm also facing an order >> >> > > > problem when SRC_URI is computed. >> >> > > > >> >> > > > So when building SRC_URI when two layers have bbappend which apply >> >> > > > patches : the SRC_URI seems to be built using an order I fail to >> >> > > > understand somewhere instead of priority or the overrides' order. >> >> > > > >> >> > > > The use case is a System on Module and its custom motherboard : >> >> > > > - meta-fsl-arm : >> >> > > > * linux-imx_xyz.bb : >> >> > > > SRC_URI = "patchgeneric1 ..." >> >> > > > >> >> > > > - meta-som-support : >> >> > > > * conf/machine/mysom.conf >> >> > > > >> >> > > > * linux-imx_xyz.bbappend : >> >> > > > SRC_URI_append_mysom = "patchsom1 patchsom2 ..." >> >> > > > >> >> > > > - meta-custommotherboard (SOM + Cunstom Motherboard) : >> >> > > > * conf/machine/myproduct.conf >> >> > > > MACHINEOVERRIDES_prepend = "mysom:" >> >> > > > include conf/machine/mysom.conf >> >> > > > >> >> > > > * linux-imx_xyz.bbappend : >> >> > > > SRC_URI_append_myproduct = "patchproduct1 patchproduct2 ..." >> >> > > > >> >> > > > in the end I get : >> >> > > > SRC_URI = "patchgeneric1 ... patchsoc1 ... patchproduct1 ... >> >> > > > patchsom1 ..." >> >> > > > >> >> > > > and of course as patchproduct* are supposed to apply on top of >> >> > > > patchsoc* the patch fail to apply. >> >> > > > >> >> > > > I didn't found a way to build SRC_URI in the order I would like (I >> >> > > > tested : changing MACHINEOVERRIDES 's order, changing layers' priority, >> >> > > > changing machine's name to see if that was an alphabetical order ...). >> >> > > > >> >> > > > In the end the only thing which worked was to add an (empty by default) >> >> > > > variable in som's SRC_URI and filling this variables from the >> >> > > > custommotherboard's bbappend. >> >> > > > >> >> > > > Is the behaviour I'm seeing expected or is there something wrong in my >> >> > > > setup ? >> >> > > >> >> > > what is your OVERRIDES order. >> >> > > >> >> > "${TARGET_OS}:${TRANSLATED_TARGET_ARCH}:build-${BUILD_OS}:pn-${PN}:${MACHINEOVERRIDES}:${DISTROOVERRIDES}:${CLASSOVERRIDE}:forcevariable" >> >> > >> >> > so it follows the MACHINEOVERRIDES order (and I tried both append and >> >> > prepend to hack MACHINEOVERRIDES without any behaviour change). >> >> >> >> I think what Khem is asking is what OVERRIDES expands to? >> >> >> >> You mean patchso* and not patchsoc* above, right? Or should patchsom1 be >> >> patchsoc2? >> >> >> > oops : >> > I expect SRC_URI = "patchgeneric1 ... patchsom1 ... patchproduct1 ..." >> > and I get : >> > SRC_URI = "patchgeneric1 ... patchproduct1 ... patchsom1 ..." >> > >> >> Its hard to follow and it might be easier if you could share a >> >> simplified test case we could reproduce this with. I don't doubt there >> >> is an issue in there but we need a way to reproduce and debug this. >> >> >> > OK, I'm preparing a simple testcase to reproduce that with oe-core + >> > meta-fsl-arm + meta-som + meta-baseboard. >> > >> > Eric >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Openembedded-core mailing list >> > Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org >> > http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core >> >> >> I have to report an undesiderate behavior: >> >> the formfactor files in our .bbappend are not considered :/ >> DEBUG: Searching for machconfig in paths:.... >> /oe/oe-core/meta/recipes-bsp/formfactor/formfactor-0.0/ >> /oe/oe-core/meta/recipes-bsp/formfactor/formfactor/ >> /oe/oe-core/meta/recipes-bsp/formfactor/files/ >> /oe/meta-handheld/recipes-bsp/formfactor/files/poodle >> >> so we end up with the empty machconfig of >> /oe/oe-core/meta/recipes-bsp/formfactor/files/ >> >> Surely this didn't happen when we tested the recipe. > > With which revision of OE-Core? Was this with the dora release tag, > current dora head or master? > > Cheers, > > Richard > > This was with fresh master: Build Configuration: BB_VERSION = "1.21.0" BUILD_SYS = "i686-linux" NATIVELSBSTRING = "Gentoo" TARGET_SYS = "arm-oe-linux-gnueabi" MACHINE = "poodle" DISTRO_VERSION = "oe-core.0" TUNE_FEATURES = "armv5 thumb dsp" TARGET_FPU = "soft" meta = "master:511b4194165ed7a5645169e09c27db280d5a5316" meta-initramfs = "master:4d62e7f575e2a87197c74ab4639561b45eec0e60" meta-handheld = "master:55a310666b543e6beca47fa3c197492d5a6cf8ff" Cheers ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: SRC_URI computing order 2013-11-04 22:13 ` Andrea Adami @ 2013-11-06 8:45 ` Andrea Adami 2013-11-07 23:20 ` Richard Purdie 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Andrea Adami @ 2013-11-06 8:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Purdie, openembeded-devel, openembedded-core On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 11:13 PM, Andrea Adami <andrea.adami@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 12:10 AM, Richard Purdie > <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> On Sun, 2013-11-03 at 23:16 +0100, Andrea Adami wrote: >>> On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Eric Bénard <eric@eukrea.com> wrote: >>> > Hi Richard, >>> > >>> > Le Wed, 30 Oct 2013 15:15:12 +0000, >>> > Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> a écrit : >>> > >>> >> On Tue, 2013-10-29 at 08:28 +0100, Eric Bénard wrote: >>> >> > Hi Khem, >>> >> > >>> >> > Le Mon, 28 Oct 2013 20:45:21 -0700, >>> >> > Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> a écrit : >>> >> > >>> >> > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Eric Bénard <eric@eukrea.com> wrote: >>> >> > > > Hi Richard, >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > I saw your patch fixing FILESPATH's and Kergoth's one fixing >>> >> > > > PACKAGECONFIG processing order and I think I'm also facing an order >>> >> > > > problem when SRC_URI is computed. >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > So when building SRC_URI when two layers have bbappend which apply >>> >> > > > patches : the SRC_URI seems to be built using an order I fail to >>> >> > > > understand somewhere instead of priority or the overrides' order. >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > The use case is a System on Module and its custom motherboard : >>> >> > > > - meta-fsl-arm : >>> >> > > > * linux-imx_xyz.bb : >>> >> > > > SRC_URI = "patchgeneric1 ..." >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > - meta-som-support : >>> >> > > > * conf/machine/mysom.conf >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > * linux-imx_xyz.bbappend : >>> >> > > > SRC_URI_append_mysom = "patchsom1 patchsom2 ..." >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > - meta-custommotherboard (SOM + Cunstom Motherboard) : >>> >> > > > * conf/machine/myproduct.conf >>> >> > > > MACHINEOVERRIDES_prepend = "mysom:" >>> >> > > > include conf/machine/mysom.conf >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > * linux-imx_xyz.bbappend : >>> >> > > > SRC_URI_append_myproduct = "patchproduct1 patchproduct2 ..." >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > in the end I get : >>> >> > > > SRC_URI = "patchgeneric1 ... patchsoc1 ... patchproduct1 ... >>> >> > > > patchsom1 ..." >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > and of course as patchproduct* are supposed to apply on top of >>> >> > > > patchsoc* the patch fail to apply. >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > I didn't found a way to build SRC_URI in the order I would like (I >>> >> > > > tested : changing MACHINEOVERRIDES 's order, changing layers' priority, >>> >> > > > changing machine's name to see if that was an alphabetical order ...). >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > In the end the only thing which worked was to add an (empty by default) >>> >> > > > variable in som's SRC_URI and filling this variables from the >>> >> > > > custommotherboard's bbappend. >>> >> > > > >>> >> > > > Is the behaviour I'm seeing expected or is there something wrong in my >>> >> > > > setup ? >>> >> > > >>> >> > > what is your OVERRIDES order. >>> >> > > >>> >> > "${TARGET_OS}:${TRANSLATED_TARGET_ARCH}:build-${BUILD_OS}:pn-${PN}:${MACHINEOVERRIDES}:${DISTROOVERRIDES}:${CLASSOVERRIDE}:forcevariable" >>> >> > >>> >> > so it follows the MACHINEOVERRIDES order (and I tried both append and >>> >> > prepend to hack MACHINEOVERRIDES without any behaviour change). >>> >> >>> >> I think what Khem is asking is what OVERRIDES expands to? >>> >> >>> >> You mean patchso* and not patchsoc* above, right? Or should patchsom1 be >>> >> patchsoc2? >>> >> >>> > oops : >>> > I expect SRC_URI = "patchgeneric1 ... patchsom1 ... patchproduct1 ..." >>> > and I get : >>> > SRC_URI = "patchgeneric1 ... patchproduct1 ... patchsom1 ..." >>> > >>> >> Its hard to follow and it might be easier if you could share a >>> >> simplified test case we could reproduce this with. I don't doubt there >>> >> is an issue in there but we need a way to reproduce and debug this. >>> >> >>> > OK, I'm preparing a simple testcase to reproduce that with oe-core + >>> > meta-fsl-arm + meta-som + meta-baseboard. >>> > >>> > Eric >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > Openembedded-core mailing list >>> > Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org >>> > http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core >>> >>> >>> I have to report an undesiderate behavior: >>> >>> the formfactor files in our .bbappend are not considered :/ >>> DEBUG: Searching for machconfig in paths:.... >>> /oe/oe-core/meta/recipes-bsp/formfactor/formfactor-0.0/ >>> /oe/oe-core/meta/recipes-bsp/formfactor/formfactor/ >>> /oe/oe-core/meta/recipes-bsp/formfactor/files/ >>> /oe/meta-handheld/recipes-bsp/formfactor/files/poodle >>> >>> so we end up with the empty machconfig of >>> /oe/oe-core/meta/recipes-bsp/formfactor/files/ >>> >>> Surely this didn't happen when we tested the recipe. >> >> With which revision of OE-Core? Was this with the dora release tag, >> current dora head or master? >> >> Cheers, >> >> Richard >> >> > > This was with fresh master: > > Build Configuration: > BB_VERSION = "1.21.0" > BUILD_SYS = "i686-linux" > NATIVELSBSTRING = "Gentoo" > TARGET_SYS = "arm-oe-linux-gnueabi" > MACHINE = "poodle" > DISTRO_VERSION = "oe-core.0" > TUNE_FEATURES = "armv5 thumb dsp" > TARGET_FPU = "soft" > meta = "master:511b4194165ed7a5645169e09c27db280d5a5316" > meta-initramfs = "master:4d62e7f575e2a87197c74ab4639561b45eec0e60" > meta-handheld = "master:55a310666b543e6beca47fa3c197492d5a6cf8ff" > > Cheers FYI In the hurry for a solution for fixing formfactor and ipaq-boot-params my quick hack was to revert http://cgit.openembedded.org/openembedded-core/commit/meta?id=92cbf7eeea553bfa24c7081473fa8bc4ebc1f552 That appears to fix the specific issue... Andrea ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: SRC_URI computing order 2013-11-06 8:45 ` Andrea Adami @ 2013-11-07 23:20 ` Richard Purdie 2013-11-08 11:55 ` Otavio Salvador 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Richard Purdie @ 2013-11-07 23:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andrea Adami; +Cc: openembeded-devel, openembedded-core On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 09:45 +0100, Andrea Adami wrote: > On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 11:13 PM, Andrea Adami <andrea.adami@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 12:10 AM, Richard Purdie > > <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> On Sun, 2013-11-03 at 23:16 +0100, Andrea Adami wrote: > >>> I have to report an undesiderate behavior: > >>> > >>> the formfactor files in our .bbappend are not considered :/ > >>> DEBUG: Searching for machconfig in paths:.... > >>> /oe/oe-core/meta/recipes-bsp/formfactor/formfactor-0.0/ > >>> /oe/oe-core/meta/recipes-bsp/formfactor/formfactor/ > >>> /oe/oe-core/meta/recipes-bsp/formfactor/files/ > >>> /oe/meta-handheld/recipes-bsp/formfactor/files/poodle > >>> > >>> so we end up with the empty machconfig of > >>> /oe/oe-core/meta/recipes-bsp/formfactor/files/ > >>> > >>> Surely this didn't happen when we tested the recipe. > >> > >> With which revision of OE-Core? Was this with the dora release tag, > >> current dora head or master? > >> > >> Cheers, > >> > >> Richard > >> > >> > > > > This was with fresh master: > > > > Build Configuration: > > BB_VERSION = "1.21.0" > > BUILD_SYS = "i686-linux" > > NATIVELSBSTRING = "Gentoo" > > TARGET_SYS = "arm-oe-linux-gnueabi" > > MACHINE = "poodle" > > DISTRO_VERSION = "oe-core.0" > > TUNE_FEATURES = "armv5 thumb dsp" > > TARGET_FPU = "soft" > > meta = "master:511b4194165ed7a5645169e09c27db280d5a5316" > > meta-initramfs = "master:4d62e7f575e2a87197c74ab4639561b45eec0e60" > > meta-handheld = "master:55a310666b543e6beca47fa3c197492d5a6cf8ff" > > > > Cheers > FYI > In the hurry for a solution for fixing formfactor and ipaq-boot-params > my quick hack was to revert > > http://cgit.openembedded.org/openembedded-core/commit/meta?id=92cbf7eeea553bfa24c7081473fa8bc4ebc1f552 > > That appears to fix the specific issue... Its a hacky workaround. The real issue is that you don't set DISTRO and this puts a :: into FILESOVERRIDES (and OVERRIDES). I've sent a patch out which sets a default for DISTRO since its the nicer way I could find to fix this. The behaviour in the above patch is correct. Cheers, Richard ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: SRC_URI computing order 2013-11-07 23:20 ` Richard Purdie @ 2013-11-08 11:55 ` Otavio Salvador 0 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Otavio Salvador @ 2013-11-08 11:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Purdie; +Cc: openembeded-devel, openembedded-core On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 9:20 PM, Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 09:45 +0100, Andrea Adami wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 11:13 PM, Andrea Adami <andrea.adami@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 12:10 AM, Richard Purdie >> > <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> >> On Sun, 2013-11-03 at 23:16 +0100, Andrea Adami wrote: >> >>> I have to report an undesiderate behavior: >> >>> >> >>> the formfactor files in our .bbappend are not considered :/ >> >>> DEBUG: Searching for machconfig in paths:.... >> >>> /oe/oe-core/meta/recipes-bsp/formfactor/formfactor-0.0/ >> >>> /oe/oe-core/meta/recipes-bsp/formfactor/formfactor/ >> >>> /oe/oe-core/meta/recipes-bsp/formfactor/files/ >> >>> /oe/meta-handheld/recipes-bsp/formfactor/files/poodle >> >>> >> >>> so we end up with the empty machconfig of >> >>> /oe/oe-core/meta/recipes-bsp/formfactor/files/ >> >>> >> >>> Surely this didn't happen when we tested the recipe. >> >> >> >> With which revision of OE-Core? Was this with the dora release tag, >> >> current dora head or master? >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> >> >> Richard >> >> >> >> >> > >> > This was with fresh master: >> > >> > Build Configuration: >> > BB_VERSION = "1.21.0" >> > BUILD_SYS = "i686-linux" >> > NATIVELSBSTRING = "Gentoo" >> > TARGET_SYS = "arm-oe-linux-gnueabi" >> > MACHINE = "poodle" >> > DISTRO_VERSION = "oe-core.0" >> > TUNE_FEATURES = "armv5 thumb dsp" >> > TARGET_FPU = "soft" >> > meta = "master:511b4194165ed7a5645169e09c27db280d5a5316" >> > meta-initramfs = "master:4d62e7f575e2a87197c74ab4639561b45eec0e60" >> > meta-handheld = "master:55a310666b543e6beca47fa3c197492d5a6cf8ff" >> > >> > Cheers >> FYI >> In the hurry for a solution for fixing formfactor and ipaq-boot-params >> my quick hack was to revert >> >> http://cgit.openembedded.org/openembedded-core/commit/meta?id=92cbf7eeea553bfa24c7081473fa8bc4ebc1f552 >> >> That appears to fix the specific issue... > > Its a hacky workaround. The real issue is that you don't set DISTRO and > this puts a :: into FILESOVERRIDES (and OVERRIDES). I've sent a patch > out which sets a default for DISTRO since its the nicer way I could find > to fix this. The behaviour in the above patch is correct. Can you point this patch? -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems http://www.ossystems.com.br http://code.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854 Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: SRC_URI computing order 2013-11-03 22:16 ` Andrea Adami 2013-11-03 23:10 ` Richard Purdie @ 2013-11-04 8:33 ` Eric Bénard 1 sibling, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Eric Bénard @ 2013-11-04 8:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andrea Adami; +Cc: openembedded-core Hi Andrea, Le Sun, 3 Nov 2013 23:16:09 +0100, Andrea Adami <andrea.adami@gmail.com> a écrit : > I have to report an undesiderate behavior: > > the formfactor files in our .bbappend are not considered :/ > DEBUG: Searching for machconfig in paths:.... > /oe/oe-core/meta/recipes-bsp/formfactor/formfactor-0.0/ > /oe/oe-core/meta/recipes-bsp/formfactor/formfactor/ > /oe/oe-core/meta/recipes-bsp/formfactor/files/ > /oe/meta-handheld/recipes-bsp/formfactor/files/poodle > > so we end up with the empty machconfig of > /oe/oe-core/meta/recipes-bsp/formfactor/files/ > > Surely this didn't happen when we tested the recipe. > isn't that problem fixed by cherry-picking commit 92cbf7eeea553bfa24c7081473fa8bc4ebc1f552 in oe-core ? Eric ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: SRC_URI computing order 2013-10-28 14:10 ` SRC_URI computing order Eric Bénard 2013-10-29 3:45 ` Khem Raj @ 2013-11-01 15:36 ` Eric Bénard 2013-11-01 18:16 ` Richard Purdie 1 sibling, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Eric Bénard @ 2013-11-01 15:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Purdie; +Cc: openembedded-core Hi, Le Mon, 28 Oct 2013 15:10:04 +0100, Eric Bénard <eric@eukrea.com> a écrit : > I saw your patch fixing FILESPATH's and Kergoth's one fixing > PACKAGECONFIG processing order and I think I'm also facing an order > problem when SRC_URI is computed. > > So when building SRC_URI when two layers have bbappend which apply > patches : the SRC_URI seems to be built using an order I fail to > understand somewhere instead of priority or the overrides' order. > > The use case is a System on Module and its custom motherboard : > - meta-fsl-arm : > * linux-imx_xyz.bb : > SRC_URI = "patchgeneric1 ..." > > - meta-som-support : > * conf/machine/mysom.conf > > * linux-imx_xyz.bbappend : > SRC_URI_append_mysom = "patchsom1 patchsom2 ..." > > - meta-custommotherboard (SOM + Cunstom Motherboard) : > * conf/machine/myproduct.conf > MACHINEOVERRIDES_prepend = "mysom:" > include conf/machine/mysom.conf > > * linux-imx_xyz.bbappend : > SRC_URI_append_myproduct = "patchproduct1 patchproduct2 ..." > > in the end I get : > SRC_URI = "patchgeneric1 ... patchsoc1 ... patchproduct1 ... > patchsom1 ..." > > and of course as patchproduct* are supposed to apply on top of > patchsoc* the patch fail to apply. > > I didn't found a way to build SRC_URI in the order I would like (I > tested : changing MACHINEOVERRIDES 's order, changing layers' priority, > changing machine's name to see if that was an alphabetical order ...). > > In the end the only thing which worked was to add an (empty by default) > variable in som's SRC_URI and filling this variables from the > custommotherboard's bbappend. > > Is the behaviour I'm seeing expected or is there something wrong in my > setup ? > do you need more details concerning this problem ? Thanks Eric ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: SRC_URI computing order 2013-11-01 15:36 ` Eric Bénard @ 2013-11-01 18:16 ` Richard Purdie 2013-11-02 8:45 ` Eric Bénard 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Richard Purdie @ 2013-11-01 18:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eric Bénard; +Cc: openembedded-core On Fri, 2013-11-01 at 16:36 +0100, Eric Bénard wrote: > Hi, > > Le Mon, 28 Oct 2013 15:10:04 +0100, > Eric Bénard <eric@eukrea.com> a écrit : > > I saw your patch fixing FILESPATH's and Kergoth's one fixing > > PACKAGECONFIG processing order and I think I'm also facing an order > > problem when SRC_URI is computed. > > > > So when building SRC_URI when two layers have bbappend which apply > > patches : the SRC_URI seems to be built using an order I fail to > > understand somewhere instead of priority or the overrides' order. > > > > The use case is a System on Module and its custom motherboard : > > - meta-fsl-arm : > > * linux-imx_xyz.bb : > > SRC_URI = "patchgeneric1 ..." > > > > - meta-som-support : > > * conf/machine/mysom.conf > > > > * linux-imx_xyz.bbappend : > > SRC_URI_append_mysom = "patchsom1 patchsom2 ..." > > > > - meta-custommotherboard (SOM + Cunstom Motherboard) : > > * conf/machine/myproduct.conf > > MACHINEOVERRIDES_prepend = "mysom:" > > include conf/machine/mysom.conf > > > > * linux-imx_xyz.bbappend : > > SRC_URI_append_myproduct = "patchproduct1 patchproduct2 ..." > > > > in the end I get : > > SRC_URI = "patchgeneric1 ... patchsoc1 ... patchproduct1 ... > > patchsom1 ..." > > > > and of course as patchproduct* are supposed to apply on top of > > patchsoc* the patch fail to apply. > > > > I didn't found a way to build SRC_URI in the order I would like (I > > tested : changing MACHINEOVERRIDES 's order, changing layers' priority, > > changing machine's name to see if that was an alphabetical order ...). > > > > In the end the only thing which worked was to add an (empty by default) > > variable in som's SRC_URI and filling this variables from the > > custommotherboard's bbappend. > > > > Is the behaviour I'm seeing expected or is there something wrong in my > > setup ? > > > do you need more details concerning this problem ? I sent a reply asking for more info. I think there is a typo above which isn't helping... Cheers, Richard ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: SRC_URI computing order 2013-11-01 18:16 ` Richard Purdie @ 2013-11-02 8:45 ` Eric Bénard 0 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Eric Bénard @ 2013-11-02 8:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Purdie; +Cc: openembedded-core Le Fri, 01 Nov 2013 18:16:18 +0000, Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> a écrit : > On Fri, 2013-11-01 at 16:36 +0100, Eric Bénard wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Le Mon, 28 Oct 2013 15:10:04 +0100, > > Eric Bénard <eric@eukrea.com> a écrit : > > > I saw your patch fixing FILESPATH's and Kergoth's one fixing > > > PACKAGECONFIG processing order and I think I'm also facing an order > > > problem when SRC_URI is computed. > > > > > > So when building SRC_URI when two layers have bbappend which apply > > > patches : the SRC_URI seems to be built using an order I fail to > > > understand somewhere instead of priority or the overrides' order. > > > > > > The use case is a System on Module and its custom motherboard : > > > - meta-fsl-arm : > > > * linux-imx_xyz.bb : > > > SRC_URI = "patchgeneric1 ..." > > > > > > - meta-som-support : > > > * conf/machine/mysom.conf > > > > > > * linux-imx_xyz.bbappend : > > > SRC_URI_append_mysom = "patchsom1 patchsom2 ..." > > > > > > - meta-custommotherboard (SOM + Cunstom Motherboard) : > > > * conf/machine/myproduct.conf > > > MACHINEOVERRIDES_prepend = "mysom:" > > > include conf/machine/mysom.conf > > > > > > * linux-imx_xyz.bbappend : > > > SRC_URI_append_myproduct = "patchproduct1 patchproduct2 ..." > > > > > > in the end I get : > > > SRC_URI = "patchgeneric1 ... patchsoc1 ... patchproduct1 ... > > > patchsom1 ..." > > > > > > and of course as patchproduct* are supposed to apply on top of > > > patchsoc* the patch fail to apply. > > > > > > I didn't found a way to build SRC_URI in the order I would like (I > > > tested : changing MACHINEOVERRIDES 's order, changing layers' priority, > > > changing machine's name to see if that was an alphabetical order ...). > > > > > > In the end the only thing which worked was to add an (empty by default) > > > variable in som's SRC_URI and filling this variables from the > > > custommotherboard's bbappend. > > > > > > Is the behaviour I'm seeing expected or is there something wrong in my > > > setup ? > > > > > do you need more details concerning this problem ? > > I sent a reply asking for more info. I think there is a typo above which > isn't helping... > sorry I missed your mail. Eric ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2013-11-08 11:55 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 16+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2013-10-09 22:42 [PATCH] utils.bbclass: Fix override ordering for FILESPATH Richard Purdie 2013-10-28 14:10 ` SRC_URI computing order Eric Bénard 2013-10-29 3:45 ` Khem Raj 2013-10-29 7:28 ` Eric Bénard 2013-10-30 15:15 ` Richard Purdie 2013-11-02 8:47 ` Eric Bénard 2013-11-03 22:16 ` Andrea Adami 2013-11-03 23:10 ` Richard Purdie 2013-11-04 22:13 ` Andrea Adami 2013-11-06 8:45 ` Andrea Adami 2013-11-07 23:20 ` Richard Purdie 2013-11-08 11:55 ` Otavio Salvador 2013-11-04 8:33 ` Eric Bénard 2013-11-01 15:36 ` Eric Bénard 2013-11-01 18:16 ` Richard Purdie 2013-11-02 8:45 ` Eric Bénard
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox