From: Andreas Oberritter <obi@opendreambox.org>
To: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
Subject: Re: bug in recipe version priorities across layers?
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 17:54:21 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4F466F3D.8060504@opendreambox.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120223140409.GT3769@jama.jama.net>
On 23.02.2012 15:04, Martin Jansa wrote:
> Afaik latest version from layer with highest priority wins. Which
> doesn't always mean latest version globally.
>
> DEFAULT_PREFERENCE doesn't help e.g. to demote development version in some
> layer with higher priority.
>
> But PREFERRED_VERSION does work.
Thanks, Martin! I didn't expect that, but it's an explanation. Is this
documented somewhere? I think OE-classic behaved differently.
I noticed that "bitbake-layers show-overlayed" nicely prints the
available versions in order of preference. For some packages, I don't
understand the ordering though, e.g.:
python-setuptools:
meta-oe 0.6c11-ml3
meta 0.6c11-ml3
python-setuptools-native:
meta 0.6c11-ml3
meta-oe 0.6c11-ml3
(I modified bitbake-layers to include PR in its output)
The diff between both layers looks like this:
--- openembedded-core/meta/recipes-devtools/python/python-setuptools_0.6c11.bb 2012-01-18 15:05:39.876945863 +0100
+++ meta-openembedded/meta-oe/recipes-devtools/python/python-setuptools_0.6c11.bb 2012-01-18 15:10:23.816943155 +0100
@@ -29,3 +29,5 @@
SRC_URI[sha256sum] = "630fea9b726320b73ee3ca6ff61732cb32675b0389be658080fe46383b87a1d3"
BBCLASSEXTEND = "native"
+
+NATIVE_INSTALL_WORKS = "1"
---
The only occurence of python-setuptools(-native) is:
meta/classes/setuptools.bbclass:DEPENDS += "python-setuptools-native"
Another strange one, this time with unequal versions:
mpfr:
meta-oe 3.0.0-r4
meta 3.1.0-r0
mpfr-native:
meta 3.1.0-r0
meta-oe 3.0.0-r4
Would lowering the priority of meta-openembedded affect its ability to
bbappend OE-core's recipes? Is it possible to lower its priority, or to
raise the priority of OE core, without modifying conf/layer.conf in
either layer?
Regards,
Andreas
>> - The older wpa-supplicant is provided for a different machine.
>> - Both bitbake and openembedded-core are from today's master branches.
>>
>> The problem: The machine I'm building for also picks up version 0.5.10,
>> unless I eiher copy 0.7.3 from openembedded-core to my layer or delete
>> version 0.5.10 from my layer. Deleting wpa-supplicant_0.7.3.bbappend
>> doesn't change the behaviour.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-02-23 17:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-02-23 13:57 bug in recipe version priorities across layers? Andreas Oberritter
2012-02-23 14:04 ` Martin Jansa
2012-02-23 16:54 ` Andreas Oberritter [this message]
2012-02-23 21:01 ` Martin Jansa
2012-02-23 22:23 ` Chris Larson
2012-02-24 10:33 ` Martin Jansa
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=4F466F3D.8060504@opendreambox.org \
--to=obi@opendreambox.org \
--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