sort of a policy question but i'm working with a vendor layer from
STMicroelectronics ("ST"), and that layer provides ST's version of
u-boot -- a recipe named "u-boot-stm32mp". fair enough, and they also
have an include file that makes that recipe the preferred provider:PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/bootloader ??= "u-boot-stm32mp" so, ideally, someone would not define their recipes to refer to u-boot explicitly, but to virtual/bootloader. but i decided to build the "base" (OE) u-boot recipe just as a baseline, and ran: $ bitbake u-boot and was surprised that nothing further was done, and i noticed that it tried to build ST's recipe, and then i noticed this: PREFERRED_PROVIDER_u-boot ??= "u-boot-stm32mp" is that normal behaviour from a vendor? does that not mean i can't even try to build OE's version of u-boot because ST's setting above will hijack the recipe name? is this considered normal vendor behaviour? rday
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#229705): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/229705 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/117362611/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
