Op 18 apr. 2012, om 17:46 heeft Martin Jansa het volgende geschreven: > On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 10:21:38AM -0500, Mark Hatle wrote: >> On 4/18/12 9:37 AM, Andreas Oberritter wrote: >>> On 18.04.2012 14:45, Richard Purdie wrote: >>>> On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 14:08 +0200, Andreas Oberritter wrote: >>>>> On 18.04.2012 14:00, Richard Purdie wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 13:54 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote: >>>>>>> I had a lot of those (e.g. because armv7a-vfp-neon was including 20 >>>>>>> arm*feed.conf variants in /etc/opkg most of them empty - without >>>>>>> Packages.gz). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So I've added "filter" to distro-feed-configs >>>>>>> http://git.shr-project.org/git/?p=meta-smartphone.git;a=commit;h=236aa553bb0f82f741c6edb793e96f421f24f4fa >>>>>>> to add only feeds I'm generating (and I also don't want armv5* packages >>>>>>> installed on armv7a-vfp-neon target unless user explicitly adds armv5* >>>>>>> feed). >>>>>> >>>>>> This is the better solution. I think we need to get a better default >>>>>> feed-config generation mechanism into the core. Distros may still need >>>>>> to tweak it but it would be good to share some of the best practises... >>>>> >>>>> Did you look at the patch? Which default setting of >>>>> SUPPORTED_EXTRA_ARCHS do you suggest? >>>> >>>> I did. I didn't say the above patch was a perfect solution. >>>> >>>>> Do you think it's feasible to add >>>>> every single downloadable arch to this variable? If a user of my distro >>>>> decides to build it for some arm or x86 cpu, should he need to know >>>>> which archs to add at this place? >>>> >>>> This is a place where the build system meets and interfaces with the >>>> distro. No one policy in the build system is going to fit every distro's >>>> needs, not should we ever aim to so. >>> >>> At least we should have defaults that actually work for someone. Now we >>> don't and considering that distro-feed-configs.bb is the only place >>> where PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS is actually used, this would be very easy to >>> accomplish. Especially because it worked well by default before Mark >>> broke it. >> >> PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS is also used by Zypper, RPM configuration and other >> places. >> In those cases it is a full list of all available (and compatible) package >> architecture types. >> >> Coming from the RPM world, it seems very odd to me that a set of >> "extra_archs" >> can not list well, extra compatible archs without causing an error. I have >> no >> idea how to reconcile this behavior, without making a package manager >> distro-feed specific solution. (For RPM we absolutely want the existing >> behavior.) > > The problem Andreas is seeing is not fatal AFAIK.. just couple (or a > lot) of 404 (Packages files not available) while doing opkg update is > not nice for end user. > > Downloading many existing Packages files without any Package in it > is also suboptimal, but maybe good start.. so we can teach > meta/classes/package_ipk.bbclass:package_update_index_ipk() to create > Packages files not only for existing > ipkgarchs="${ALL_MULTILIB_PACKAGE_ARCHS} ${SDK_PACKAGE_ARCHS}" > but for all (replace "if [ -e $pkgdir/ ]; then" with something like > "if [ ! -e $pkgdir/ ]; then mkdir -p $pkgdir; fi")
That implies you're exposing feeds straight from OE, which is a bad, bad idea. _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
