From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1-g21.free.fr (smtp1-g21.free.fr [212.27.42.1]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C9AF60649 for ; Sat, 2 Nov 2013 08:47:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from e6520eb (unknown [82.233.81.124]) (Authenticated sender: eukrea) by smtp1-g21.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A1A8F940114; Sat, 2 Nov 2013 09:47:26 +0100 (CET) Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2013 09:47:25 +0100 From: Eric =?ISO-8859-1?B?QuluYXJk?= To: Richard Purdie Message-ID: <20131102094725.14fb6902@e6520eb> In-Reply-To: <1383146112.25877.34.camel@ted> References: <1381358545.29912.50.camel@ted> <20131028151004.34b2af21@e6520eb> <20131029082852.4399ee5e@e6520eb> <1383146112.25877.34.camel@ted> Organization: =?ISO-8859-1?B?RXVrculh?= Electromatique X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.2 (GTK+ 2.24.22; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: openembedded-core Subject: Re: SRC_URI computing order 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: Sat, 02 Nov 2013 08:47:34 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Richard, Le Wed, 30 Oct 2013 15:15:12 +0000, Richard Purdie a =E9crit : > On Tue, 2013-10-29 at 08:28 +0100, Eric B=E9nard wrote: > > Hi Khem, > >=20 > > Le Mon, 28 Oct 2013 20:45:21 -0700, > > Khem Raj a =E9crit : > >=20 > > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Eric B=E9nard wrot= e: > > > > 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 =3D "patchgeneric1 ..." > > > > > > > > - meta-som-support : > > > > * conf/machine/mysom.conf > > > > > > > > * linux-imx_xyz.bbappend : > > > > SRC_URI_append_mysom =3D "patchsom1 patchsom2 ..." > > > > > > > > - meta-custommotherboard (SOM + Cunstom Motherboard) : > > > > * conf/machine/myproduct.conf > > > > MACHINEOVERRIDES_prepend =3D "mysom:" > > > > include conf/machine/mysom.conf > > > > > > > > * linux-imx_xyz.bbappend : > > > > SRC_URI_append_myproduct =3D "patchproduct1 patchproduct2 ..." > > > > > > > > in the end I get : > > > > SRC_URI =3D "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' prior= ity, > > > > 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 defa= ult) > > > > 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 ? > > >=20 > > > what is your OVERRIDES order. > > >=20 > > "${TARGET_OS}:${TRANSLATED_TARGET_ARCH}:build-${BUILD_OS}:pn-${PN}:${MA= CHINEOVERRIDES}:${DISTROOVERRIDES}:${CLASSOVERRIDE}:forcevariable" > >=20 > > so it follows the MACHINEOVERRIDES order (and I tried both append and > > prepend to hack MACHINEOVERRIDES without any behaviour change). >=20 > I think what Khem is asking is what OVERRIDES expands to? >=20 > You mean patchso* and not patchsoc* above, right? Or should patchsom1 be > patchsoc2? >=20 oops : I expect SRC_URI =3D "patchgeneric1 ... patchsom1 ... patchproduct1 ..." and I get : SRC_URI =3D "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. >=20 OK, I'm preparing a simple testcase to reproduce that with oe-core + meta-fsl-arm + meta-som + meta-baseboard. Eric