On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 10:47:31AM +0800, Robert Yang wrote: > > > On 05/25/2012 07:30 PM, Martin Jansa wrote: > > On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 01:19:55PM +0200, Koen Kooi wrote: > >> > >> Op 25 mei 2012, om 12:02 heeft Robert Yang het volgende geschreven: > >> > >>> There is a bug if we: > >>> 1) bitbake core-image-sato-sdk MACHINE=qemux86 > >>> 2) bitbake core-image-sato with MACHINE=crownbay > >>> > >>> Then several pkgs in deploy/ipk/i586 would be installed to crownbay's > >>> image even if there is one in deploy/ipk/core2 and we have set the > >>> core2's priority higher than i586, when the version in deploy/ipk/i586 is > >>> higher. This doesn't work for us, for example, what the crownbay need is > >>> xserver-xorg-1.9.3, but it installs xserver-xorg-1.11.2. > >>> > >>> This is caused by opkg's selecting mechanism, if there are more than one > >>> candidates which have the same pkg name in the candidate list, for > >>> example, the same pkg with different versions, then it will use the last > >>> one which is the highest version in the list, this doesn't work for us, > >>> it should respect to the arch priorities in such a case. > >> > >> This is a serious break with the current opkg behaviour and I don't think > >> it's an improvement. Needing different versions for non machine specific > >> packages indicates a more serious bug elsewhere. > > > > It's not the same use-case as those 2 above, but what I don't like on > > Hi Martin, > > They are the same cases:-), I think that this patch has also fixed your > problem,
No, at least not completely the same. I would prefer to upgrade foo-1.0-r1_armv4t temporary until foo-1.0-r1_armv7a gets available in feed and that won't happen with your patch AFAIK. with your patch: If you have bar-1.0 which has to be MACHINE_ARCH and in 2.0 bar developers find way to detect and use all machine capabilities in runtime, recipe maintainer will switch to TUNE_ARCH, then foo-1.0_nokia900.ipk won't be ever upgraded to foo-2.0_armv7a.ipk and that's bad. Cheers, > the foo-1.0_armv7a will be kept now. > > // Robert > > > current opkg behaviour is that it doesn't "reinstall" the package with > > the same version when it gets available in arch with higher priority. > > > > e.g. I have armv7a device which has feed urls for armv4t and armv7a > > (armv7a of course with higher priority). > > > > foo-1.0 in both feeds armv4t armv7a > > > > opkg update&& opkg install foo -> foo-1.0_armv7a > > > > distro builder publish foo-1.0-r1 sofar only in armv4t feed > > > > opkg update&& opkg upgrade -> foo-1.0_armv7a is upgraded to > > foo-1.0-r1_armv4t) > > > > distro builder publish foo-1.0-r1 also to armv7a feed > > > > opkg update&& opkg upgrade -> nothing, but "upgrading" to > > foo-1.0-r1_armv7a) would be better > > > > > > On my distro builder I'm trying to prevent this scenario by rsyncing > > feeds only after build for *all* supported machines is completed, but > > that's still not really atomic operation. (And later I've also started > > to filter feeds which gets available on target image). > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Openembedded-core mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core -- Martin 'JaMa' Jansa jabber: [email protected]
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
