Op 18 apr. 2012, om 20:10 heeft Andreas Oberritter het volgende geschreven:
> On 18.04.2012 19:01, Koen Kooi wrote: >> >> 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. > > Can you please elaborate on why this is a bad idea? The main reason is that packages will get recreated with different MD5 sums, upsetting opkg. And worse, they will have different contents because PR bumps get left out a lot (but less than they used to). It's analogous to using WORKDIR/rootfs for nfsroot. It might work for you, but in general it's a bad idea. What we do in angstrom is disallow duplicate files to get uploaded, so foo_1.0-r0.ipk won't get overwritten by a 'newer' foo_1.0-r0.ipk, it will only go away if foo_1.0-r1.ipk gets uploaded. regards, Koen _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
