Re: [PATCH 1/5] Use common files for AT91SAM9 configuration

[Ulf Samuelsson <ulf.samuelsson@atmel.com>]

Philip Balister skrev:
> On 10/18/2010 07:10 PM, Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
>> Khem Raj skrev:
>>> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 10:10 AM, Ulf Samuelsson
>>> <ulf.samuelsson@atmel.com>  wrote:
>>>> Koen Kooi skrev:
>>>>> On 18-10-10 15:38, Ulf Samuelsson wrote:
>>>>>> Marcin Juszkiewicz skrev:
>>>>>>> Dnia sobota, 16 pazdziernika 2010 o 14:50:02 
>>>>>>> ulf.samuelsson@atmel.com
>>>>>>> napisaB(a):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +++ b/conf/machine/include/at91-2.6.30.inc
>>>>>>>> +++ b/conf/machine/include/at91-2.6.32.inc
>>>>>>> Do you plan to duplicate that file with each kernel you will 
>>>>>>> produce?
>>>>>>> Create include/at91-sam9.inc and put it there.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> This is to allow different kernel versions for different AT91 chips.
>>>>>> This allows both a "stable" version, and a development kernel
>>>>>> to be easily handled.
>>>>>> The file defines (amongst other things) the
>>>>>> * kernel version,
>>>>>> * u-boot version
>>>>>> * at91bootstrap version
>>>>>> so you need one file per version.he
>>>>> NAK! Machines don't get to decide versions! Please revert that commit
>>>>> and come up with a better way, e.g. default_preference in the 
>>>>> recipes or
>>>>> distro include files.
>>>> If I look at the machine files, almost all of them provide
>>>> a preferred kernel / u-boot. Some also provide version.
>>>
>>> we should avoid pinning versions there. Choosing a type is fine.
>>>
>>
>> Why ?
>> Is it because it affect rebuild time?
>> It would be good to understand what problems people see with this.
>>
>> We are pinning the version to a specific machine, in the kernel recipe.
>> If we add a new recipe, then we can, by increasing the priority
>> force a different kernel to be built.
>> This will not affect anything else.
>>
>> If the version is in the machine configuration, then a change of
>> kernel version could force a total rebuild, or?
>>
>> Any other problem?
> 
> In general, if you pin a version in a machine file, consider what 
> happens in the case of a distro that supports many machines. Your 
> machine build one version of something and the other machines build 
> another.
> 
> now do an update, upgrade on a package the version you chose may change, 
> or it may change on the other machines. There are likely some packages 
> you can pin version in machine files, but in general, it will cause 
> problems for distros that support more than just one machine at a time.
> 
> Philip


We are only talking about the kernel/u-boot/at91bootstrap.
Not any arbitrary applications.
I do agree that the distro should handle versioning for the normal file 
system.


BR
Ulf Samuelsson