On 06/02/12 11:50, Koen Kooi wrote:
Op 6 feb. 2012, om 20:37 heeft Joshua Lock het volgende geschreven:
On 06/02/12 10:58, Koen Kooi wrote:
Op 6 feb. 2012 om 19:33 heeft Joshua Lock<[email protected]> het volgende
geschreven:
On 04/02/12 08:07, Koen Kooi wrote:
Op 3 feb. 2012, om 18:15 heeft Darren Hart het volgende geschreven:
On 02/02/2012 10:59 AM, Joshua Lock wrote:
On 02/02/12 10:54, Koen Kooi wrote:
Op 2 feb. 2012, om 19:51 heeft Joshua Lock het volgende
geschreven:
Several BSP's are appending netbase to add MACHINE specific
networking functionality. Rather than BSP creators having to
mark netbase MACHINE specific just default to PACKAGE_ARCH =
"${MACHINE_ARCH}" in netbase.
This shouldn't be a huge hit as netbase just copies files
around.
In the past OE would mark things machine specific if something in
SRC_URI was fetched using overrides. So it this patches fixed
netbase the 'old' mechanism is broken :(
This patch doesn't fix netbase, I just thought it would be simpler to
make this change than ensure all BSP's use appropriate OVERRIDEs in
their netbase bbappends - several I've seen don't.
Is there a consensus on whether or not this can go in? I need either
this or the BSP layer fix for a new BSP. It seems to me that netbase is
overridden enough for machine specific things (like the interface file)
that Joshua's approach is the better fix.
It all depends on how much crap in BSPs you want to fix up in OE-core. Where
are you going to draw the line?
I understand you don't like this change but I don't really understand why?
My intention with the patch is to make it easier for folks to produce BSP's
which don't introduce bugs into other builds for the same architecture.
You're not making it easier, you're just fixing up bugs in the BSP in oe-core.
So where do you draw
the line on that?
Thanks for persisting.
As I understand your argument: BSP developers still need to understand the
intricacies involved as soon as they make a similar change to a non-netbase
recipe?
I can't and won't disagree with that.
I could argue that, in the specific case of netbase, it's reasonable to expect
the resultant package file to be MACHINE specific. For example, I wouldn't
expect to take the network configuration from my laptop, copy it to my
workstation and for it to all work.
On the subject of networking, there's some overlap between the network
management on oe-core/meta-oe. The current options:
* ifupdown (/etc/network/interfaces)
* connman (ignores /etc/network/interfaces)
* network manager (has a plugin to stay away from interfaces listed in
/etc/network/interfaces)
I think we should have a look at how those 3 intergrate into the images we
build. There is no cabal, but some face time at ELC would likely help :)
Agreed. I'm keen to have the layers interoperate more nicely so would
welcome the discussion of this at ELC.
I'll be sure to share with the list too!
Cheers,
Joshua
--
Joshua Lock
Yocto Project "Johannes factotum"
Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
