Op 26 mei 2012, om 08:28 heeft Martin Jansa het volgende geschreven: > 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.
And what's worse, the cited usecase is for (slightly paraphrasing): xserver-xorg 1.11.2 i586 xserver-xorg 1.9.3 i686 Which indicates there is a different, more serious problem at hand. It seems that someone is trying to encode machine specific tweaks to non-machine specific packages. I'm more interested in solving that problem than in changing opkg/rpm behaviour. There are a number of things that are just not possible to do when supporting multimachine builds and/or multimachine feeds. For example: machine dogbeachmountain (i686) needs xf86-video-evilpowervr-closedbinary that only works with Xorg 1.9, but machine cherryblossomhighway (i586) can use xf86-video-intel with any xserver-xorg. If you want both of these machines to work in multimachine builds and/or feeds, you need to lock down xserver-xorg to 1.9 for i*86. If you don't want to lock it down and imgtec won't give you a better binary drop, too bad, stop doing multimachine. I'm not saying the above situation is what Robert is trying to solve, but it's a situation meta-ti is currently facing with the new binary drop for SGX support. When you have dealt with SGX blobs everything starts to look like an SGX problem :) regards, Koen _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
