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 10:54:29 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4FC045E5.5040709@windriver.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4FC04443.1090708@windriver.com>
On 05/26/2012 10:47 AM, Robert Yang wrote:
>
>
> 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.
Sorry for the typo, ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Here should be "will be upgraded".
// Robert
>
> // 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-05-26 3:04 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
2012-05-26 2:54 ` Robert Yang [this message]
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=4FC045E5.5040709@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