local.conf & bblayers.conf changes...

local.conf & bblayers.conf changes...

[Rich Pixley]

Where can I find a description of the recent changes and what I need to 
do to bring my files back up to current?

What were the incompatible changes?

--rich

Re: local.conf & bblayers.conf changes...

[Saul Wold]

On 07/03/2012 09:42 AM, Rich Pixley wrote:
> Where can I find a description of the recent changes and what I need to
> do to bring my files back up to current?
>
> What were the incompatible changes?
>
For bblayers.conf, we bumped the version becase we moved the BBPATH 
initial setting into the bblayers.conf to ensure we dont accidently 
pickup things in . because of the way a :: was being parsed.  See
this commit
http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/poky/commit/?id=5e3a61b40b7b697d83b41e7e247cd1f94eb7673c

Not sure what you mean about local.conf, since I am not sure of your 
starting point.

Sau!


> --rich
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
>
>

Re: local.conf & bblayers.conf changes...

[Rich Pixley]

On 7/3/12 10:01 , Saul Wold wrote:
> On 07/03/2012 09:42 AM, Rich Pixley wrote:
>> Where can I find a description of the recent changes and what I need to
>> do to bring my files back up to current?
>>
>> What were the incompatible changes?
>>
> For bblayers.conf, we bumped the version becase we moved the BBPATH
> initial setting into the bblayers.conf to ensure we dont accidently
> pickup things in . because of the way a :: was being parsed.  See
> this commit
> http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/poky/commit/?id=5e3a61b40b7b697d83b41e7e247cd1f94eb7673c
>
> Not sure what you mean about local.conf, since I am not sure of your
> starting point.
Ok, so I *liked* having BBPATH be relative.  The alternative, using 
absolute pathnames, means that you have to bolt absolute path names into 
all of your binaries, all of your debug symbols, and all of your build 
configurations.  This means that your binary sizes are greater, that 
debug symbols are significantly greater and more difficult to configure 
properly in your debuger, and that working directories cannot be moved 
around or renamed without needing to manually force full rebuilds.  It 
also means that some forms of file system checkpointing can't be used 
since you can't rely on the build to be in the same place on the file 
system every build.

I'll try to roll with the current plan, though.

In the current arrangement, I'm getting confusing messages about not 
setting MACHINE, even though MACHINE is set in my local.conf.  I'm 
guessing that means that the pathing is busted and it's not finding my 
local.conf.  How is the initial configuration file found?  And which 
configuration file is initial?  Is that "./conf/bblayers.conf"?  And if 
so, does this mean that I need to put my other directory assignments 
like TOPDIR and TMPDIR in bblayers.conf as well?  And if so, then what's 
the logical distinction between bblayers.conf and local.conf at this 
point if build policy needs to go into bblayers.conf?

--rich

Re: local.conf & bblayers.conf changes...

[Mark Hatle]

On 7/3/12 12:19 PM, Rich Pixley wrote:
> On 7/3/12 10:01 , Saul Wold wrote:
>> On 07/03/2012 09:42 AM, Rich Pixley wrote:
>>> Where can I find a description of the recent changes and what I need to
>>> do to bring my files back up to current?
>>>
>>> What were the incompatible changes?
>>>
>> For bblayers.conf, we bumped the version becase we moved the BBPATH
>> initial setting into the bblayers.conf to ensure we dont accidently
>> pickup things in . because of the way a :: was being parsed.  See
>> this commit
>> http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/poky/commit/?id=5e3a61b40b7b697d83b41e7e247cd1f94eb7673c
>>
>> Not sure what you mean about local.conf, since I am not sure of your
>> starting point.
> Ok, so I *liked* having BBPATH be relative.  The alternative, using
> absolute pathnames, means that you have to bolt absolute path names into
> all of your binaries, all of your debug symbols, and all of your build
> configurations.  This means that your binary sizes are greater, that
> debug symbols are significantly greater and more difficult to configure
> properly in your debuger, and that working directories cannot be moved
> around or renamed without needing to manually force full rebuilds.  It
> also means that some forms of file system checkpointing can't be used
> since you can't rely on the build to be in the same place on the file
> system every build.

BBPATH being relative doesn't affect what ends up in debug symbols, etc.

The BBPATH needs to be absolute, within the scope of a single loaded session to 
avoid randomly included items, primarily from the CWD.  This prevents 
non-repeatable builds.

In a layer, the typical BBPATH is something like:

BBPATH := "${LAYERDIR}:${BBPATH}"

LAYERDIR is always the path to the layer being processed at any given time... 
so if a layer also provides addition scripts you can do:

# Add scripts to PATH
PATH := "${PATH}:${LAYERDIR}/scripts"


As for the debug items, the system handles all of the debug symbols for you. 
All target symbols are referenced from the -root- of the target filesystem.  If 
this is not happening in your builds, then you've disabled the debug symbol 
processing -- or you found a bug in the system...  On the target side, debugging 
on the target that is, everything should 'just work' with no manual settings.

On a remote debug, you just need to tell the system where the relative path is 
to the root of the filesystem you are debugging, gdb should then be able to add 
the references to the associated sources and .debug split items.

This is all unchanged behavior for oe-core from when it was made oe-core to present.

> I'll try to roll with the current plan, though.
>
> In the current arrangement, I'm getting confusing messages about not
> setting MACHINE, even though MACHINE is set in my local.conf.  I'm
> guessing that means that the pathing is busted and it's not finding my
> local.conf.  How is the initial configuration file found?  And which

If it says MACHINE isn't configured, then you are lacking a proper BSP/machine 
configuration file.

There are a couple of checks, but in the end they resolve down to checking that 
TUNE_ARCH, TARGET_OS, and TUNE_PKGARCH exit and are reasonable, as well as 
conf/machine/${MACHINE}.conf can be loaded.

Any of the above items not found or not configured properly indicate MACHINE 
isn't defined, or the conf/machine/${MACHINE}.conf doesn't exist -- or is 
incorrectly configured.

> configuration file is initial?  Is that "./conf/bblayers.conf"?  And if
> so, does this mean that I need to put my other directory assignments
> like TOPDIR and TMPDIR in bblayers.conf as well?  And if so, then what's
> the logical distinction between bblayers.conf and local.conf at this
> point if build policy needs to go into bblayers.conf?

bblayers shouldn't affect your machine files, other then a layer may contain a 
conf/machine/...conf file.  The BBPATH setting of ${LAYERDIR} allows this 
directory to be automatically scanned when requesting a conf file.

--Mark

> --rich
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
>

Re: local.conf & bblayers.conf changes...

[Martin Jansa]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5208 bytes --]

On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 12:35:35PM -0500, Mark Hatle wrote:
> On 7/3/12 12:19 PM, Rich Pixley wrote:
> > On 7/3/12 10:01 , Saul Wold wrote:
> >> On 07/03/2012 09:42 AM, Rich Pixley wrote:
> >>> Where can I find a description of the recent changes and what I need to
> >>> do to bring my files back up to current?
> >>>
> >>> What were the incompatible changes?
> >>>
> >> For bblayers.conf, we bumped the version becase we moved the BBPATH
> >> initial setting into the bblayers.conf to ensure we dont accidently
> >> pickup things in . because of the way a :: was being parsed.  See
> >> this commit
> >> http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/poky/commit/?id=5e3a61b40b7b697d83b41e7e247cd1f94eb7673c
> >>
> >> Not sure what you mean about local.conf, since I am not sure of your
> >> starting point.
> > Ok, so I *liked* having BBPATH be relative.  The alternative, using
> > absolute pathnames, means that you have to bolt absolute path names into
> > all of your binaries, all of your debug symbols, and all of your build
> > configurations.  This means that your binary sizes are greater, that
> > debug symbols are significantly greater and more difficult to configure
> > properly in your debuger, and that working directories cannot be moved
> > around or renamed without needing to manually force full rebuilds.  It
> > also means that some forms of file system checkpointing can't be used
> > since you can't rely on the build to be in the same place on the file
> > system every build.
> 
> BBPATH being relative doesn't affect what ends up in debug symbols, etc.
> 
> The BBPATH needs to be absolute, within the scope of a single loaded session to 
> avoid randomly included items, primarily from the CWD.  This prevents 
> non-repeatable builds.
> 
> In a layer, the typical BBPATH is something like:
> 
> BBPATH := "${LAYERDIR}:${BBPATH}"

No, please append to it, so order of layers in BBPATH is the same as
order of layers in BBLAYERS variable in bblayers.conf

So typical BBPATH in layer.conf should be:
BBPATH .= ":${LAYERDIR}"

This is now consistent in all layers I'm using and quick search in
layers I'm not using shows only meta-baryon having it vice versa.

Cheers,

> 
> LAYERDIR is always the path to the layer being processed at any given time... 
> so if a layer also provides addition scripts you can do:
> 
> # Add scripts to PATH
> PATH := "${PATH}:${LAYERDIR}/scripts"
> 
> 
> As for the debug items, the system handles all of the debug symbols for you. 
> All target symbols are referenced from the -root- of the target filesystem.  If 
> this is not happening in your builds, then you've disabled the debug symbol 
> processing -- or you found a bug in the system...  On the target side, debugging 
> on the target that is, everything should 'just work' with no manual settings.
> 
> On a remote debug, you just need to tell the system where the relative path is 
> to the root of the filesystem you are debugging, gdb should then be able to add 
> the references to the associated sources and .debug split items.
> 
> This is all unchanged behavior for oe-core from when it was made oe-core to present.
> 
> > I'll try to roll with the current plan, though.
> >
> > In the current arrangement, I'm getting confusing messages about not
> > setting MACHINE, even though MACHINE is set in my local.conf.  I'm
> > guessing that means that the pathing is busted and it's not finding my
> > local.conf.  How is the initial configuration file found?  And which
> 
> If it says MACHINE isn't configured, then you are lacking a proper BSP/machine 
> configuration file.
> 
> There are a couple of checks, but in the end they resolve down to checking that 
> TUNE_ARCH, TARGET_OS, and TUNE_PKGARCH exit and are reasonable, as well as 
> conf/machine/${MACHINE}.conf can be loaded.
> 
> Any of the above items not found or not configured properly indicate MACHINE 
> isn't defined, or the conf/machine/${MACHINE}.conf doesn't exist -- or is 
> incorrectly configured.
> 
> > configuration file is initial?  Is that "./conf/bblayers.conf"?  And if
> > so, does this mean that I need to put my other directory assignments
> > like TOPDIR and TMPDIR in bblayers.conf as well?  And if so, then what's
> > the logical distinction between bblayers.conf and local.conf at this
> > point if build policy needs to go into bblayers.conf?
> 
> bblayers shouldn't affect your machine files, other then a layer may contain a 
> conf/machine/...conf file.  The BBPATH setting of ${LAYERDIR} allows this 
> directory to be automatically scanned when requesting a conf file.
> 
> --Mark
> 
> > --rich
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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

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

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 205 bytes --]

Re: local.conf & bblayers.conf changes...

[Mark Hatle]

On 7/3/12 12:47 PM, Martin Jansa wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 12:35:35PM -0500, Mark Hatle wrote:
>> On 7/3/12 12:19 PM, Rich Pixley wrote:
>>> On 7/3/12 10:01 , Saul Wold wrote:
>>>> On 07/03/2012 09:42 AM, Rich Pixley wrote:
>>>>> Where can I find a description of the recent changes and what I need to
>>>>> do to bring my files back up to current?
>>>>>
>>>>> What were the incompatible changes?
>>>>>
>>>> For bblayers.conf, we bumped the version becase we moved the BBPATH
>>>> initial setting into the bblayers.conf to ensure we dont accidently
>>>> pickup things in . because of the way a :: was being parsed.  See
>>>> this commit
>>>> http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/poky/commit/?id=5e3a61b40b7b697d83b41e7e247cd1f94eb7673c
>>>>
>>>> Not sure what you mean about local.conf, since I am not sure of your
>>>> starting point.
>>> Ok, so I *liked* having BBPATH be relative.  The alternative, using
>>> absolute pathnames, means that you have to bolt absolute path names into
>>> all of your binaries, all of your debug symbols, and all of your build
>>> configurations.  This means that your binary sizes are greater, that
>>> debug symbols are significantly greater and more difficult to configure
>>> properly in your debuger, and that working directories cannot be moved
>>> around or renamed without needing to manually force full rebuilds.  It
>>> also means that some forms of file system checkpointing can't be used
>>> since you can't rely on the build to be in the same place on the file
>>> system every build.
>>
>> BBPATH being relative doesn't affect what ends up in debug symbols, etc.
>>
>> The BBPATH needs to be absolute, within the scope of a single loaded session to
>> avoid randomly included items, primarily from the CWD.  This prevents
>> non-repeatable builds.
>>
>> In a layer, the typical BBPATH is something like:
>>
>> BBPATH := "${LAYERDIR}:${BBPATH}"
>
> No, please append to it, so order of layers in BBPATH is the same as
> order of layers in BBLAYERS variable in bblayers.conf

This affects ordering.. in my expample.. I wanted my layer to take precedence 
over the BBPATH is other layers.

> So typical BBPATH in layer.conf should be:
> BBPATH .= ":${LAYERDIR}"

It has to be := and not .=.  If it's not immediately resolved, then ${LAYERDIR} 
will go to undefined later.

If .= is working, I'm surprised.. the semantics may be different when processing 
BBPATH then other variables.

> This is now consistent in all layers I'm using and quick search in
> layers I'm not using shows only meta-baryon having it vice versa.

--Mark

> Cheers,
>
>>
>> LAYERDIR is always the path to the layer being processed at any given time...
>> so if a layer also provides addition scripts you can do:
>>
>> # Add scripts to PATH
>> PATH := "${PATH}:${LAYERDIR}/scripts"
>>
>>
>> As for the debug items, the system handles all of the debug symbols for you.
>> All target symbols are referenced from the -root- of the target filesystem.  If
>> this is not happening in your builds, then you've disabled the debug symbol
>> processing -- or you found a bug in the system...  On the target side, debugging
>> on the target that is, everything should 'just work' with no manual settings.
>>
>> On a remote debug, you just need to tell the system where the relative path is
>> to the root of the filesystem you are debugging, gdb should then be able to add
>> the references to the associated sources and .debug split items.
>>
>> This is all unchanged behavior for oe-core from when it was made oe-core to present.
>>
>>> I'll try to roll with the current plan, though.
>>>
>>> In the current arrangement, I'm getting confusing messages about not
>>> setting MACHINE, even though MACHINE is set in my local.conf.  I'm
>>> guessing that means that the pathing is busted and it's not finding my
>>> local.conf.  How is the initial configuration file found?  And which
>>
>> If it says MACHINE isn't configured, then you are lacking a proper BSP/machine
>> configuration file.
>>
>> There are a couple of checks, but in the end they resolve down to checking that
>> TUNE_ARCH, TARGET_OS, and TUNE_PKGARCH exit and are reasonable, as well as
>> conf/machine/${MACHINE}.conf can be loaded.
>>
>> Any of the above items not found or not configured properly indicate MACHINE
>> isn't defined, or the conf/machine/${MACHINE}.conf doesn't exist -- or is
>> incorrectly configured.
>>
>>> configuration file is initial?  Is that "./conf/bblayers.conf"?  And if
>>> so, does this mean that I need to put my other directory assignments
>>> like TOPDIR and TMPDIR in bblayers.conf as well?  And if so, then what's
>>> the logical distinction between bblayers.conf and local.conf at this
>>> point if build policy needs to go into bblayers.conf?
>>
>> bblayers shouldn't affect your machine files, other then a layer may contain a
>> conf/machine/...conf file.  The BBPATH setting of ${LAYERDIR} allows this
>> directory to be automatically scanned when requesting a conf file.
>>
>> --Mark
>>
>>> --rich
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
>

Re: local.conf & bblayers.conf changes...

[Martin Jansa]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6746 bytes --]

On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 12:51:06PM -0500, Mark Hatle wrote:
> On 7/3/12 12:47 PM, Martin Jansa wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 12:35:35PM -0500, Mark Hatle wrote:
> >> On 7/3/12 12:19 PM, Rich Pixley wrote:
> >>> On 7/3/12 10:01 , Saul Wold wrote:
> >>>> On 07/03/2012 09:42 AM, Rich Pixley wrote:
> >>>>> Where can I find a description of the recent changes and what I need to
> >>>>> do to bring my files back up to current?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What were the incompatible changes?
> >>>>>
> >>>> For bblayers.conf, we bumped the version becase we moved the BBPATH
> >>>> initial setting into the bblayers.conf to ensure we dont accidently
> >>>> pickup things in . because of the way a :: was being parsed.  See
> >>>> this commit
> >>>> http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/poky/commit/?id=5e3a61b40b7b697d83b41e7e247cd1f94eb7673c
> >>>>
> >>>> Not sure what you mean about local.conf, since I am not sure of your
> >>>> starting point.
> >>> Ok, so I *liked* having BBPATH be relative.  The alternative, using
> >>> absolute pathnames, means that you have to bolt absolute path names into
> >>> all of your binaries, all of your debug symbols, and all of your build
> >>> configurations.  This means that your binary sizes are greater, that
> >>> debug symbols are significantly greater and more difficult to configure
> >>> properly in your debuger, and that working directories cannot be moved
> >>> around or renamed without needing to manually force full rebuilds.  It
> >>> also means that some forms of file system checkpointing can't be used
> >>> since you can't rely on the build to be in the same place on the file
> >>> system every build.
> >>
> >> BBPATH being relative doesn't affect what ends up in debug symbols, etc.
> >>
> >> The BBPATH needs to be absolute, within the scope of a single loaded session to
> >> avoid randomly included items, primarily from the CWD.  This prevents
> >> non-repeatable builds.
> >>
> >> In a layer, the typical BBPATH is something like:
> >>
> >> BBPATH := "${LAYERDIR}:${BBPATH}"
> >
> > No, please append to it, so order of layers in BBPATH is the same as
> > order of layers in BBLAYERS variable in bblayers.conf
> 
> This affects ordering.. in my expample.. I wanted my layer to take precedence 
> over the BBPATH is other layers.

Then move your layer in BBLAYERS variable.

What if someone else would like your layer but doesn't want it to take
precedence? If you use append then he can adjust it's priority by adding
it in right place in BBLAYER, otherwise he needs to change layer.conf..

> > So typical BBPATH in layer.conf should be:
> > BBPATH .= ":${LAYERDIR}"
> 
> It has to be := and not .=.  If it's not immediately resolved, then ${LAYERDIR} 
> will go to undefined later.
> 
> If .= is working, I'm surprised.. the semantics may be different when processing 
> BBPATH then other variables.

Yes it is or do you suggest that all layers I'm using are not in my
BBPATH? :)

> 
> > This is now consistent in all layers I'm using and quick search in
> > layers I'm not using shows only meta-baryon having it vice versa.
> 
> --Mark
> 
> > Cheers,
> >
> >>
> >> LAYERDIR is always the path to the layer being processed at any given time...
> >> so if a layer also provides addition scripts you can do:
> >>
> >> # Add scripts to PATH
> >> PATH := "${PATH}:${LAYERDIR}/scripts"
> >>
> >>
> >> As for the debug items, the system handles all of the debug symbols for you.
> >> All target symbols are referenced from the -root- of the target filesystem.  If
> >> this is not happening in your builds, then you've disabled the debug symbol
> >> processing -- or you found a bug in the system...  On the target side, debugging
> >> on the target that is, everything should 'just work' with no manual settings.
> >>
> >> On a remote debug, you just need to tell the system where the relative path is
> >> to the root of the filesystem you are debugging, gdb should then be able to add
> >> the references to the associated sources and .debug split items.
> >>
> >> This is all unchanged behavior for oe-core from when it was made oe-core to present.
> >>
> >>> I'll try to roll with the current plan, though.
> >>>
> >>> In the current arrangement, I'm getting confusing messages about not
> >>> setting MACHINE, even though MACHINE is set in my local.conf.  I'm
> >>> guessing that means that the pathing is busted and it's not finding my
> >>> local.conf.  How is the initial configuration file found?  And which
> >>
> >> If it says MACHINE isn't configured, then you are lacking a proper BSP/machine
> >> configuration file.
> >>
> >> There are a couple of checks, but in the end they resolve down to checking that
> >> TUNE_ARCH, TARGET_OS, and TUNE_PKGARCH exit and are reasonable, as well as
> >> conf/machine/${MACHINE}.conf can be loaded.
> >>
> >> Any of the above items not found or not configured properly indicate MACHINE
> >> isn't defined, or the conf/machine/${MACHINE}.conf doesn't exist -- or is
> >> incorrectly configured.
> >>
> >>> configuration file is initial?  Is that "./conf/bblayers.conf"?  And if
> >>> so, does this mean that I need to put my other directory assignments
> >>> like TOPDIR and TMPDIR in bblayers.conf as well?  And if so, then what's
> >>> the logical distinction between bblayers.conf and local.conf at this
> >>> point if build policy needs to go into bblayers.conf?
> >>
> >> bblayers shouldn't affect your machine files, other then a layer may contain a
> >> conf/machine/...conf file.  The BBPATH setting of ${LAYERDIR} allows this
> >> directory to be automatically scanned when requesting a conf file.
> >>
> >> --Mark
> >>
> >>> --rich
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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

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

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 205 bytes --]

Re: local.conf & bblayers.conf changes...

[Paul Eggleton]

On Tuesday 03 July 2012 12:51:06 Mark Hatle wrote:
> It has to be := and not .=.  If it's not immediately resolved, then
> ${LAYERDIR} will go to undefined later.

I previously thought this too, but it turns out that because we call 
data.expandVarref('LAYERDIR') in the bitbake layer handling code, these 
references are expanded immediately after parsing each layer config file, so the 
:= is not needed.

Cheers,
Paul

-- 

Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre

Re: local.conf & bblayers.conf changes...

[Martin Jansa]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1881 bytes --]

On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 10:01:04AM -0700, Saul Wold wrote:
> On 07/03/2012 09:42 AM, Rich Pixley wrote:
> > Where can I find a description of the recent changes and what I need to
> > do to bring my files back up to current?
> >
> > What were the incompatible changes?
> >
> For bblayers.conf, we bumped the version becase we moved the BBPATH 
> initial setting into the bblayers.conf to ensure we dont accidently 
> pickup things in . because of the way a :: was being parsed.  See
> this commit
> http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/poky/commit/?id=5e3a61b40b7b697d83b41e7e247cd1f94eb7673c
> 
> Not sure what you mean about local.conf, since I am not sure of your 
> starting point.

Maybe he refers to OELAYOUT_ABI change from:
http://git.openembedded.org/openembedded-core/commit/?id=4199efed48005a62267fa3374c33b13627d85f44

Which in sanity.conf suggests:
"To continue, either rebuild or switch back to the OEBasic signature
handler with BB_SIGNATURE_HANDLER = 'OEBasic'."
see: http://git.openembedded.org/openembedded-core/commit/meta/classes/sanity.bbclass?id=bf440fd971dd549ae4e92c54046ea062ef51cd85

but doesn't say that if you decide to switch back to OEBasic signature
handler that you have to also bump tmp-eglibc/abi_version to 8 to
silence this sanity check and keep OEBasic without rebuilding.

Cheers,

> 
> Sau!
> 
> 
> > --rich
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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

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

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 205 bytes --]

Re: local.conf & bblayers.conf changes...

[Jack Mitchell]

On 07/03/12 17:42, Rich Pixley wrote:
> Where can I find a description of the recent changes and what I need 
> to do to bring my files back up to current?
>
> What were the incompatible changes?
>
> --rich
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core

Hi Rich,

What I did was create a new build directory and do a diff between my 
current config and the newly generated config.

I couldn't find the reference local.conf file that bitbake tells you to 
compare against...

Regards,
Jack.

Re: local.conf & bblayers.conf changes...

[Paul Eggleton]

On Tuesday 03 July 2012 18:40:35 Jack Mitchell wrote:
> What I did was create a new build directory and do a diff between my
> current config and the newly generated config.
> 
> I couldn't find the reference local.conf file that bitbake tells you to
> compare against...

It's in meta(-yocto)/conf/local.conf.sample.

Cheers,
Paul

-- 

Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre

Re: local.conf & bblayers.conf changes...

[Jack Mitchell]

On 03/07/12 20:22, Paul Eggleton wrote:
> On Tuesday 03 July 2012 18:40:35 Jack Mitchell wrote:
>> What I did was create a new build directory and do a diff between my
>> current config and the newly generated config.
>>
>> I couldn't find the reference local.conf file that bitbake tells you to
>> compare against...
>
> It's in meta(-yocto)/conf/local.conf.sample.
>
> Cheers,
> Paul
>

Indeed it is, I think I was looking in the bitbake directory originally...

I seem to remember the help message being confusing/contradictory but I 
can't find it now.

Cheers,

-- 

   Jack Mitchell (jack@embed.me.uk)
   Embedded Systems Engineer
   http://www.embed.me.uk

--

Re: local.conf & bblayers.conf changes...

[Jack Mitchell]

On 04/07/12 09:29, Jack Mitchell wrote:
> On 03/07/12 20:22, Paul Eggleton wrote:
>> On Tuesday 03 July 2012 18:40:35 Jack Mitchell wrote:
>>> What I did was create a new build directory and do a diff between my
>>> current config and the newly generated config.
>>>
>>> I couldn't find the reference local.conf file that bitbake tells you to
>>> compare against...
>>
>> It's in meta(-yocto)/conf/local.conf.sample.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Paul
>>
>
> Indeed it is, I think I was looking in the bitbake directory 
> originally...
>
> I seem to remember the help message being confusing/contradictory but 
> I can't find it now.
>
> Cheers,
>

Found it:

    "Your version of bblayers.conf was generated from an older version
    of bblayers.conf.sample and there have been updates made to this
    file. Please compare the two files and merge any changes before
    continuing.\nMatching the version numbers will remove this
    message.\n\"meld conf/bblayers.conf conf/bblayers.conf.sample\" is a
    good way to visualise the changes.\n"

What confused me was that there was no mention of where 
conf/bblayers.conf.sample file was, I assumed it was a bitbake 
controlled conf file rather than a distro controlled conf file, hence 
searching the bitbake directory.

-- 

   Jack Mitchell (jack@embed.me.uk)
   Embedded Systems Engineer
   http://www.embed.me.uk

--