Issues with PREFERRED_VERSION/PREFERRED_PROVIDER for the kernel

Issues with PREFERRED_VERSION/PREFERRED_PROVIDER for the kernel

[Ulf Samuelsson]

1. If you define something in the <MACHINE>.conf and in <DISTRO>.conf
     then <DISTRO>.conf has higher priority.
     This is really non-intuitive.

2. If you define a PREFERRED_VERSION which does not have a corresponding 
".bb" file
     you do not get a warning, and the latest PREFERRED_PROVIDER is used.

3. If you define a PREFERRED_PROVIDER which does not have a 
corresponding ".bb" file
     you *do* get a warning, with a list of possible providers, and 
bitbake will bake the
     first in the list.
     It will also bake the *latest* version, even if that provider has a 
PREFERRED_VERSION.

4. If I define PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/kernel = "linux-x"  in 
<machine>.conf,
     bitbake will bake "linux-x" using the latest version

5. If I define PREFERRED_VERSION_virtual/kernel = "3.7.0", this is ignored.

6. If I define PREFERRED_VERSION_linux-x = "3.7.0", this is accepted and 
linux-x_3.7.0.bb is used.

-------------------------------------------
Questions:
     You need to parse <machine>.conf before you parse the DISTRO since
     some things in the distro is machine dependent.

     I.E:  PREFERRED_VERSION_binutils_avr32 = "2.17"

(1) Would it be possible to reparse <machine>.conf
     after DISTRO has been parsed, resetting some stuff, overridden by 
the DISTRO?

(2)  Why no warning, if the PREFERRED_VERSION cannot be found.
     It would be good to have which versions are available.

     For the Beaglebone, you have a linux-mainline_3.7.bb, but if you set

     PREFERRED_VERSION_linux-mainline = "3.7"

     you still get "3.8.13" built, because "linux-mainline_3.7.bb" 
contains PV = "3.7.0"

     A warning would have been helpful!

(3) Why is PREFERRED_VERSION_virtual/kernel accepted without error 
message, but ignored?

(4) If bitbake cannot find a recommended PROVIDER, and selects something 
else,
      why not use the PREFERRED_VERSION if it exists?

BR
Ulf Samuelsson

Re: Issues with PREFERRED_VERSION/PREFERRED_PROVIDER for the kernel

[Koen Kooi]

Op 18 okt. 2013, om 17:59 heeft Ulf Samuelsson <angstrom-dev@emagii.com> het volgende geschreven:

> 1. If you define something in the <MACHINE>.conf and in <DISTRO>.conf
>    then <DISTRO>.conf has higher priority.
>    This is really non-intuitive.

It is correct however, if the DISTRO defines it, it's a DISTRO setting that a MACHINE.conf really should stay away from.

regards,

KOen

Re: Issues with PREFERRED_VERSION/PREFERRED_PROVIDER for the kernel

[Ulf Samuelsson]

In some cases, you might want to override a few things in the DISTRO.

Maybe an easy way to handle this would be if the DISTRO conf file 
included an empty file at the end, 
which can be overridden by a file in your own layer.

Best Regards
Ulf Samuelsson

18 okt 2013 kl. 18:31 skrev Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net>:

> 
> Op 18 okt. 2013, om 17:59 heeft Ulf Samuelsson <angstrom-dev@emagii.com> het volgende geschreven:
> 
>> 1. If you define something in the <MACHINE>.conf and in <DISTRO>.conf
>>   then <DISTRO>.conf has higher priority.
>>   This is really non-intuitive.
> 
> It is correct however, if the DISTRO defines it, it's a DISTRO setting that a MACHINE.conf really should stay away from.
> 
> regards,
> 
> KOen

Re: Issues with PREFERRED_VERSION/PREFERRED_PROVIDER for the kernel

[Chris Larson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 444 bytes --]

On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Ulf Samuelsson <angstrom-dev@emagii.com>wrote:

> In some cases, you might want to override a few things in the DISTRO.
>
> Maybe an easy way to handle this would be if the DISTRO conf file
> included an empty file at the end,
> which can be overridden by a file in your own layer.
>

If the distro wants to be able to be overridden, it should use ?= or ??= as
appropriate.
-- 
Christopher Larson

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 793 bytes --]