From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F05A8D2ECF7 for ; Tue, 20 Jan 2026 13:36:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from cpanel10.indieserve.net (cpanel10.indieserve.net [199.212.143.9]) by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.msgproc02-g2.6445.1768916191582807224 for ; Tue, 20 Jan 2026 05:36:31 -0800 Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io; dkim=pass header.i=@crashcourse.ca header.s=default header.b=sQok17Q6; spf=pass (domain: crashcourse.ca, ip: 199.212.143.9, mailfrom: rpjday@crashcourse.ca) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=crashcourse.ca; s=default; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:Subject: To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To:Cc:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=XL0nI0VH43y+zWiWMKV73wDzfE0zE8T6HrtZeOemocg=; b=sQok17Q6rUWhYWElZjj/1KwTnr ++KRgOyeyWuMiZRHVuDMVucK7cPlV6FU//vdD77dOJ1vtiL9gUamD1qPk4CYyw7vQ2yXqI/khxMKF XLt2/9AwoXB4qzJaA9oUlqnqXz5BL+Iq4b5IhNTP40GKd4qHmkm/CF11QtHFbxHhKqorO3Q5bSSbT +zL1xRGnOpIUIBgYS80GP4D69raXG07jv2yOjb1FeVI4WHh5X+jj4iXEThKaCNhtnimSWuY+2Y9Qc VVyk215bUYxpanjxD7IE+tN0k+wFyg517jFB6+uBx6lfsOEgb7poYBNsvwW3/cBHG5lP+k2dYd5iM 39zPAWsw==; Received: from [147.129.179.166] (port=40608 helo=rday) by cpanel10.indieserve.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.3) tls TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.99.1) (envelope-from ) id 1viBuH-00000009hvD-33Bt for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Tue, 20 Jan 2026 08:36:30 -0500 Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2026 08:37:00 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert P. J. Day" To: OE Core mailing list Subject: should a vendor layer override the base "u-boot" recipe? Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - cpanel10.indieserve.net X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - lists.openembedded.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - crashcourse.ca X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: cpanel10.indieserve.net: authenticated_id: rpjday+crashcourse.ca/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed X-Authenticated-Sender: cpanel10.indieserve.net: rpjday@crashcourse.ca X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: List-Id: X-Webhook-Received: from 45-33-107-173.ip.linodeusercontent.com [45.33.107.173] by aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org with HTTPS for ; Tue, 20 Jan 2026 13:36:35 -0000 X-Groupsio-URL: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/229705 sort of a policy question but i'm working with a vendor layer from STMicroelectronics ("ST"), and that layer provides ST's version of u-boot -- a recipe named "u-boot-stm32mp". fair enough, and they also have an include file that makes that recipe the preferred provider: PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/bootloader ??= "u-boot-stm32mp" so, ideally, someone would not define their recipes to refer to u-boot explicitly, but to virtual/bootloader. but i decided to build the "base" (OE) u-boot recipe just as a baseline, and ran: $ bitbake u-boot and was surprised that nothing further was done, and i noticed that it tried to build ST's recipe, and then i noticed this: PREFERRED_PROVIDER_u-boot ??= "u-boot-stm32mp" is that normal behaviour from a vendor? does that not mean i can't even try to build OE's version of u-boot because ST's setting above will hijack the recipe name? is this considered normal vendor behaviour? rday