[PATCH] Add recommended layer to oe-core

[PATCH] Add recommended layer to oe-core

[Mark Hatle]

This patch is being sent for Yocto Project compliance reasons.  It is not
expected to be integrated.

The patch is unique to Wind River Linux's implementation.  We have
special layers called 'download layers', where we aggregate all of the
download content needed by a given layer.  The layer recommends allows us to
optionally depend on these special layers.

Mark Hatle (1):
  meta/conf/layer.conf: Add recommended download layer

 meta/conf/layer.conf | 2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

-- 
2.9.3

[PATCH] meta/conf/layer.conf: Add recommended download layer

[Mark Hatle]

This is a Wind River specific patch and not generally applicable.

Signed-off-by: Mark Hatle <mark.hatle@windriver.com>
---
 meta/conf/layer.conf | 2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/meta/conf/layer.conf b/meta/conf/layer.conf
index 24b4df0..a94e524 100644
--- a/meta/conf/layer.conf
+++ b/meta/conf/layer.conf
@@ -11,6 +11,8 @@ BBFILE_PRIORITY_core = "5"
 # cause compatibility issues with other layers
 LAYERVERSION_core = "9"
 
+LAYERRECOMMENDS_core = "oe-core-dl-2-2"
+
 BBLAYERS_LAYERINDEX_NAME_core = "openembedded-core"
 
 # Set a variable to get to the top of the metadata location
-- 
2.9.3

Re: [PATCH] meta/conf/layer.conf: Add recommended download layer

[Martin Jansa]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1055 bytes --]

On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 11:42:09AM -0600, Mark Hatle wrote:
> This is a Wind River specific patch and not generally applicable.

Then why is it sent to oe-core ML?

> 
> Signed-off-by: Mark Hatle <mark.hatle@windriver.com>
> ---
>  meta/conf/layer.conf | 2 ++
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/meta/conf/layer.conf b/meta/conf/layer.conf
> index 24b4df0..a94e524 100644
> --- a/meta/conf/layer.conf
> +++ b/meta/conf/layer.conf
> @@ -11,6 +11,8 @@ BBFILE_PRIORITY_core = "5"
>  # cause compatibility issues with other layers
>  LAYERVERSION_core = "9"
>  
> +LAYERRECOMMENDS_core = "oe-core-dl-2-2"
> +
>  BBLAYERS_LAYERINDEX_NAME_core = "openembedded-core"
>  
>  # Set a variable to get to the top of the metadata location
> -- 
> 2.9.3
> 
> -- 
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core

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

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 201 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] meta/conf/layer.conf: Add recommended download layer

[Mark Hatle]

On 11/23/16 12:10 PM, Martin Jansa wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 11:42:09AM -0600, Mark Hatle wrote:
>> This is a Wind River specific patch and not generally applicable.
> 
> Then why is it sent to oe-core ML?

As noted in the cover letter, I'm required to by Yocto Project compliance
requirements.

As indicated LAST time I got scolded, I was told to indicate this in the patch
summary email -- which I did.

--Mark

>>
>> Signed-off-by: Mark Hatle <mark.hatle@windriver.com>
>> ---
>>  meta/conf/layer.conf | 2 ++
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/meta/conf/layer.conf b/meta/conf/layer.conf
>> index 24b4df0..a94e524 100644
>> --- a/meta/conf/layer.conf
>> +++ b/meta/conf/layer.conf
>> @@ -11,6 +11,8 @@ BBFILE_PRIORITY_core = "5"
>>  # cause compatibility issues with other layers
>>  LAYERVERSION_core = "9"
>>  
>> +LAYERRECOMMENDS_core = "oe-core-dl-2-2"
>> +
>>  BBLAYERS_LAYERINDEX_NAME_core = "openembedded-core"
>>  
>>  # Set a variable to get to the top of the metadata location
>> -- 
>> 2.9.3
>>
>> -- 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Openembedded-core mailing list
>> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
>> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
> 

Re: [PATCH] meta/conf/layer.conf: Add recommended download layer

[Martin Jansa]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2041 bytes --]

On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 12:38:42PM -0600, Mark Hatle wrote:
> On 11/23/16 12:10 PM, Martin Jansa wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 11:42:09AM -0600, Mark Hatle wrote:
> >> This is a Wind River specific patch and not generally applicable.
> > 
> > Then why is it sent to oe-core ML?
> 
> As noted in the cover letter, I'm required to by Yocto Project compliance
> requirements.
> 
> As indicated LAST time I got scolded, I was told to indicate this in the patch
> summary email -- which I did.

Sorry I've noticed the cover letter only after the response.

So it's only because of this requirement from Yocto Project compliance?

"Have all patches applied to BitBake and OpenEmbedded-Core (if present)
been submitted to the open source community?"

Shouldn't the wording be change to something like "all applicable
patches" or "all generally useful patches"?

It seems strange to send project specific patches together with cover
saying that they aren't generally applicable and shouldn't be merged,
just because of this requirement.

Regards,

> >> Signed-off-by: Mark Hatle <mark.hatle@windriver.com>
> >> ---
> >>  meta/conf/layer.conf | 2 ++
> >>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/meta/conf/layer.conf b/meta/conf/layer.conf
> >> index 24b4df0..a94e524 100644
> >> --- a/meta/conf/layer.conf
> >> +++ b/meta/conf/layer.conf
> >> @@ -11,6 +11,8 @@ BBFILE_PRIORITY_core = "5"
> >>  # cause compatibility issues with other layers
> >>  LAYERVERSION_core = "9"
> >>  
> >> +LAYERRECOMMENDS_core = "oe-core-dl-2-2"
> >> +
> >>  BBLAYERS_LAYERINDEX_NAME_core = "openembedded-core"
> >>  
> >>  # Set a variable to get to the top of the metadata location
> >> -- 
> >> 2.9.3
> >>
> >> -- 
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Openembedded-core mailing list
> >> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> >> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
> > 
> 

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

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 201 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] meta/conf/layer.conf: Add recommended download layer

[Mark Hatle]

On 11/23/16 12:56 PM, Martin Jansa wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 12:38:42PM -0600, Mark Hatle wrote:
>> On 11/23/16 12:10 PM, Martin Jansa wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 11:42:09AM -0600, Mark Hatle wrote:
>>>> This is a Wind River specific patch and not generally applicable.
>>>
>>> Then why is it sent to oe-core ML?
>>
>> As noted in the cover letter, I'm required to by Yocto Project compliance
>> requirements.
>>
>> As indicated LAST time I got scolded, I was told to indicate this in the patch
>> summary email -- which I did.
> 
> Sorry I've noticed the cover letter only after the response.
> 
> So it's only because of this requirement from Yocto Project compliance?

yes.

> "Have all patches applied to BitBake and OpenEmbedded-Core (if present)
> been submitted to the open source community?"
> 
> Shouldn't the wording be change to something like "all applicable
> patches" or "all generally useful patches"?
> 
> It seems strange to send project specific patches together with cover
> saying that they aren't generally applicable and shouldn't be merged,
> just because of this requirement.

It was done this way to prevent people from cheating and claiming something was
(effectively) not useful/applicable/etc when it some special secret sauce.

Even these patches while not generally applicable could give someone else the
idea to duplicate (or improve) on our approach at providing layer specific
download layers.

--Mark

> Regards,
> 
>>>> Signed-off-by: Mark Hatle <mark.hatle@windriver.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  meta/conf/layer.conf | 2 ++
>>>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/meta/conf/layer.conf b/meta/conf/layer.conf
>>>> index 24b4df0..a94e524 100644
>>>> --- a/meta/conf/layer.conf
>>>> +++ b/meta/conf/layer.conf
>>>> @@ -11,6 +11,8 @@ BBFILE_PRIORITY_core = "5"
>>>>  # cause compatibility issues with other layers
>>>>  LAYERVERSION_core = "9"
>>>>  
>>>> +LAYERRECOMMENDS_core = "oe-core-dl-2-2"
>>>> +
>>>>  BBLAYERS_LAYERINDEX_NAME_core = "openembedded-core"
>>>>  
>>>>  # Set a variable to get to the top of the metadata location
>>>> -- 
>>>> 2.9.3
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Openembedded-core mailing list
>>>> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
>>>> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
>>>
>>
> 

Re: [PATCH] meta/conf/layer.conf: Add recommended download layer

[Christopher Larson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2002 bytes --]

On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 12:42 PM, Mark Hatle <mark.hatle@windriver.com>
wrote:

> On 11/23/16 12:56 PM, Martin Jansa wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 12:38:42PM -0600, Mark Hatle wrote:
> >> On 11/23/16 12:10 PM, Martin Jansa wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 11:42:09AM -0600, Mark Hatle wrote:
> >>>> This is a Wind River specific patch and not generally applicable.
> >>>
> >>> Then why is it sent to oe-core ML?
> >>
> >> As noted in the cover letter, I'm required to by Yocto Project
> compliance
> >> requirements.
> >>
> >> As indicated LAST time I got scolded, I was told to indicate this in
> the patch
> >> summary email -- which I did.
> >
> > Sorry I've noticed the cover letter only after the response.
> >
> > So it's only because of this requirement from Yocto Project compliance?
>
> yes.
>
> > "Have all patches applied to BitBake and OpenEmbedded-Core (if present)
> > been submitted to the open source community?"
> >
> > Shouldn't the wording be change to something like "all applicable
> > patches" or "all generally useful patches"?
> >
> > It seems strange to send project specific patches together with cover
> > saying that they aren't generally applicable and shouldn't be merged,
> > just because of this requirement.
>
> It was done this way to prevent people from cheating and claiming
> something was
> (effectively) not useful/applicable/etc when it some special secret sauce.
>
> Even these patches while not generally applicable could give someone else
> the
> idea to duplicate (or improve) on our approach at providing layer specific
> download layers.
>

More of an implementation question, but presumably you could have your
setup scripts add the LAYERRECOMMENDS to bblayers.conf, rather than having
it in your oe-core fork/branch, as an alternative.
-- 
Christopher Larson
clarson at kergoth dot com
Founder - BitBake, OpenEmbedded, OpenZaurus
Maintainer - Tslib
Senior Software Engineer, Mentor Graphics

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2670 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] meta/conf/layer.conf: Add recommended download layer

[Mark Hatle]

On 11/23/16 7:16 PM, Christopher Larson wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 12:42 PM, Mark Hatle <mark.hatle@windriver.com
> <mailto:mark.hatle@windriver.com>> wrote:
> 
>     On 11/23/16 12:56 PM, Martin Jansa wrote:
>     > On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 12:38:42PM -0600, Mark Hatle wrote:
>     >> On 11/23/16 12:10 PM, Martin Jansa wrote:
>     >>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 11:42:09AM -0600, Mark Hatle wrote:
>     >>>> This is a Wind River specific patch and not generally applicable.
>     >>>
>     >>> Then why is it sent to oe-core ML?
>     >>
>     >> As noted in the cover letter, I'm required to by Yocto Project compliance
>     >> requirements.
>     >>
>     >> As indicated LAST time I got scolded, I was told to indicate this in the patch
>     >> summary email -- which I did.
>     >
>     > Sorry I've noticed the cover letter only after the response.
>     >
>     > So it's only because of this requirement from Yocto Project compliance?
> 
>     yes.
> 
>     > "Have all patches applied to BitBake and OpenEmbedded-Core (if present)
>     > been submitted to the open source community?"
>     >
>     > Shouldn't the wording be change to something like "all applicable
>     > patches" or "all generally useful patches"?
>     >
>     > It seems strange to send project specific patches together with cover
>     > saying that they aren't generally applicable and shouldn't be merged,
>     > just because of this requirement.
> 
>     It was done this way to prevent people from cheating and claiming something was
>     (effectively) not useful/applicable/etc when it some special secret sauce.
> 
>     Even these patches while not generally applicable could give someone else the
>     idea to duplicate (or improve) on our approach at providing layer specific
>     download layers.
> 
> 
> More of an implementation question, but presumably you could have your setup
> scripts add the LAYERRECOMMENDS to bblayers.conf, rather than having it in your
> oe-core fork/branch, as an alternative.

The recommends need to be indexed by the layer index program.  The layer index
program processes one layer at a time, and there is no way to inject things.

I can manually add dependencies, however the next time I create a branch -- I
have to do this again... and again... and again....   For our product we need to
have the layer.conf setup properly so that the layer index will index the
dependencies (including the recommended layers.)

--Mark

> -- 
> Christopher Larson
> clarson at kergoth dot com
> Founder - BitBake, OpenEmbedded, OpenZaurus
> Maintainer - Tslib
> Senior Software Engineer, Mentor Graphics

Re: [PATCH] meta/conf/layer.conf: Add recommended download layer

[Patrick Ohly]

On Wed, 2016-11-23 at 13:42 -0600, Mark Hatle wrote:
> On 11/23/16 12:56 PM, Martin Jansa wrote:
> > "Have all patches applied to BitBake and OpenEmbedded-Core (if present)
> > been submitted to the open source community?"
> > 
> > Shouldn't the wording be change to something like "all applicable
> > patches" or "all generally useful patches"?
> > 
> > It seems strange to send project specific patches together with cover
> > saying that they aren't generally applicable and shouldn't be merged,
> > just because of this requirement.
> 
> It was done this way to prevent people from cheating and claiming something was
> (effectively) not useful/applicable/etc when it some special secret sauce.

Perhaps one could use [FYI] instead of [PATCH] in the mail subject to
make the intention even clearer, and patchwork could get configured to
not track such patches or at least not show them as new? Just a thought.

As it stands now, there's an entry for this patch that someone
(Richard?) will have to close:
https://patchwork.openembedded.org/series/4056/

-- 
Best Regards, Patrick Ohly

The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although
I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way
represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak
on behalf of Intel on this matter.

Re: [PATCH] meta/conf/layer.conf: Add recommended download layer

[Philip Balister]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2303 bytes --]

On 11/23/2016 01:56 PM, Martin Jansa wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 12:38:42PM -0600, Mark Hatle wrote:
>> On 11/23/16 12:10 PM, Martin Jansa wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 11:42:09AM -0600, Mark Hatle wrote:
>>>> This is a Wind River specific patch and not generally applicable.
>>>
>>> Then why is it sent to oe-core ML?
>>
>> As noted in the cover letter, I'm required to by Yocto Project compliance
>> requirements.
>>
>> As indicated LAST time I got scolded, I was told to indicate this in the patch
>> summary email -- which I did.
> 
> Sorry I've noticed the cover letter only after the response.
> 
> So it's only because of this requirement from Yocto Project compliance?
> 
> "Have all patches applied to BitBake and OpenEmbedded-Core (if present)
> been submitted to the open source community?"
> 
> Shouldn't the wording be change to something like "all applicable
> patches" or "all generally useful patches"?
> 
> It seems strange to send project specific patches together with cover
> saying that they aren't generally applicable and shouldn't be merged,
> just because of this requirement.

It is useful for the larger community to see what vendors have to do.
Possibly we could decide vendor specific patches code benefit the larer
community. I'd much rather vendors over publish then under publish.

Philip

> 
> Regards,
> 
>>>> Signed-off-by: Mark Hatle <mark.hatle@windriver.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  meta/conf/layer.conf | 2 ++
>>>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/meta/conf/layer.conf b/meta/conf/layer.conf
>>>> index 24b4df0..a94e524 100644
>>>> --- a/meta/conf/layer.conf
>>>> +++ b/meta/conf/layer.conf
>>>> @@ -11,6 +11,8 @@ BBFILE_PRIORITY_core = "5"
>>>>  # cause compatibility issues with other layers
>>>>  LAYERVERSION_core = "9"
>>>>  
>>>> +LAYERRECOMMENDS_core = "oe-core-dl-2-2"
>>>> +
>>>>  BBLAYERS_LAYERINDEX_NAME_core = "openembedded-core"
>>>>  
>>>>  # Set a variable to get to the top of the metadata location
>>>> -- 
>>>> 2.9.3
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Openembedded-core mailing list
>>>> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
>>>> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
>>>
>>
> 
> 
> 


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 514 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH] meta/conf/layer.conf: Add recommended download layer

[Burton, Ross]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 489 bytes --]

On 24 November 2016 at 14:03, Philip Balister <philip@balister.org> wrote:

> It is useful for the larger community to see what vendors have to do.
> Possibly we could decide vendor specific patches code benefit the larer
> community. I'd much rather vendors over publish then under publish.
>

Yeah, exactly.

All I ask is that vendors, when sending patches they know are for
compliance and don't expect to be merged for whatever reason, mark the
patch appropriately.

Ross

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 963 bytes --]