Openembedded Core Discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Robert Yang <liezhi.yang@windriver.com>
To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer
	<openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org>
Cc: Martin Jansa <martin.jansa@gmail.com>, Zhenfeng.Zhao@windriver.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] opkg 0.1.8: respect to the arch when choose the alternatives
Date: Sat, 26 May 2012 10:47:31 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4FC04443.1090708@windriver.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120525113057.GD3138@jama.jama.net>



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,
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



  parent reply	other threads:[~2012-05-26  2:57 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-05-25 10:02 [PATCH 0/1] opkg 0.1.8: respect to the arch when choose the alternatives Robert Yang
2012-05-25 10:02 ` [PATCH 1/1] " Robert Yang
2012-05-25 11:19   ` Koen Kooi
2012-05-25 11:30     ` Martin Jansa
2012-05-25 14:09       ` Richard Purdie
2012-05-26  2:47       ` Robert Yang [this message]
2012-05-26  2:54         ` Robert Yang
2012-05-26  6:28         ` Martin Jansa
2012-05-26  8:07           ` Koen Kooi
2012-05-26  8:47             ` Robert Yang
2012-05-26  8:15           ` Robert Yang
2012-05-26  8:19             ` Martin Jansa
2012-05-26  8:35               ` Robert Yang
2012-05-26  8:42                 ` Martin Jansa
2012-05-26  2:25     ` Robert Yang
2012-05-26  5:24   ` Robert Yang
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2012-05-31 14:13 [PATCH 0/1] V2 " Robert Yang
2012-05-31 14:13 ` [PATCH 1/1] " Robert Yang
2012-05-31 15:01   ` Koen Kooi
2012-06-01  0:23     ` Robert Yang
2012-06-01  8:17     ` Richard Purdie
2012-06-01  9:04       ` Koen Kooi
2012-06-01 10:02         ` Richard Purdie
2012-06-01 10:35           ` Koen Kooi
2012-06-04  9:31             ` Robert Yang
2012-06-04 10:39               ` Martin Jansa
2012-06-04 14:38                 ` Koen Kooi

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=4FC04443.1090708@windriver.com \
    --to=liezhi.yang@windriver.com \
    --cc=Zhenfeng.Zhao@windriver.com \
    --cc=martin.jansa@gmail.com \
    --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