On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 at 12:51, Andrey Zhizhikin <andre...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Unfortunately I have to say no to this. The problem is that this will > > update to latest revisions on all the layers, which I believe is not > > what people would want, as everything including poky etc. will be > > shifting uncontrollably. > > Correct, and that is exactly the reason why this mechanism is only > offered via additional switch. If it is not supplied - then behavior is > exactly the same, and this is intended. Only those users who would > really like to exercise the shift would use it.
If you want to add something like this, it can't be an all or nothing switch. There has to be a way to update only some of the layers, and have others stay where they are. Also, you might want to update to latest tag on a branch, rather than latest revision. There are many scenarios, and there's no way oe-setup-layers can cover them, and it shouldn't try. > I've also prepared a patch for documenting this switch, but held it back > until the functionality is in. There I do explain the case for CI systems > which would want to capture updated setup of all layers in collection. I understand and agree with the use case, I just don't think updating all layers to their latest revisions is what many users want, or that oe-setup-layers is the right place for this functionality. > In this regard I think that json prescription is too strict. > > While this totally suites the needs and purpose of passing over the layer > setup to any other client, it really limits the usability of setup-layers only > to that specific case. If this was originally an intended design, then > perhaps a note in documentation would be needed. json schema does not require having precise revisions of the layers. You can specify tags, branches or anything else that 'git checkout' understands, and oe-setup-layers would follow that. It's just that we currently don't have tools to write out anything except precise revisions. But you can edit the json after the fact to point to something else, then give it to oe-setup-layers, and it will work. > Is there any mail thread or patch stack where this has been discussed? > > I would like to take a look at what was proposed and perhaps re-use and > re-establish that part instead. Look for the patchset '[RFC 0/7] bitbake-layers: Add update-layers-setup' posted on 7 November, particularly the comments to the individual patches, where we get to the design that should work and cover the use cases. Alex
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#191884): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/191884 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/103009912/21656 Group Owner: openembedded-core+ow...@lists.openembedded.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
