On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 05:24:37PM -0600, Randolph Sapp via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote: > On Fri, Jan 20 2023 at 05:11:20 PM -0500, Denys Dmytriyenko > <de...@denix.org> wrote: > >Well, there are pros and cons to both approaches. And I would be > >more inclined > >to agree with you that it is necessary to copy over the entire > >Mesa recipes, > >if you were trying to apply patches on top of the upstream > >version. But, you > >are completely changing SRC_URI and SRCREV anyway to point to your > >own tree, > >so it doesn't matter very much what underlying version of the > >recipe you start > >with. I do believe it would just work for the master with 22.2.3 > >version. > >Sure, recipes sometimes change significantly and break your > >bbappend, but > >that's when it will be the time to consider carrying the full set > >of older > >version, sometime in the future. > > > >As an example, we've been carrying bbappends in meta-ti for > >upstream optee and > >trunsted-firmware-a recipes from meta-arm - sometimes we fall > >behind and stick > >to an older version, but sometimes we update to a newer version > >earlier than > >upstream. That's been working for several years and quite > >successful for the > >most part... > > > >On the other side of the spectrum, there's ltp-ddt recipe that is > >based on top > >of the upstream ltp recipe of a specific version. It's not exactly > >a bbappend, > >but close enough. When upstream upgrades to a newer version, we > >end up copying > >the specific previous version locally side-by-side. Later, when we > >rebase > >ltp-ddt and catch up with the ltp version upstream, we can remove the > >duplicate. > > > >In other words, *IF* we end up duplicating Mesa recipes locally, > >I'd argue we > >should keep them unmodified and apply any modifications through > >bbappend. If > >needed, you can make it version-specific, e.g. > >mesa_22.0.%.bbappend. That way > >in kirkstone you only need this bbappend, but in > >langdale/mickledore you may > >end up having a local copy of *unmodified* mesa_22.0.3.bb from > >kirkstone along > >with this mesa_22.0.%.bbappend on top. In other words - if you > >refrain from > >modifying the local duplicates of upstream files and keep them > >intact, it > >would be much easier to maintain long term... > > Well what do you recommend? Version pinning (through the copy in > meta-ti) in addition to a bbappend, or just a version globed > bbappend?
My recommendation would be to do a bbappend with partial version, i.e. 22.% or 22.0.% That will be quite easy to review and test against kirkstone. And then for master or later releases, you can add a local verbatim copy of the required mesa recipes from upstream w/o modifications as a separate patch and commit, still leaving bbappend around to apply required modifications on top. -- Denys
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#15636): https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-ti/message/15636 Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/96386295/21656 Group Owner: meta-ti+ow...@lists.yoctoproject.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/meta-ti/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
