Op 1 jun. 2012, om 10:17 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven: > On Thu, 2012-05-31 at 17:01 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote: >> Op 31 mei 2012, om 16:13 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. >> >> And this is working exactly as intended. Don't break opkg because your >> hardware driver situation sucks. >> >> So: NAK on this patch. > > I think we do have a problem here. For example, the system is ignoring a > PREFERRED_VERSION directive here
A PREFERRED_VERSION set in a machine.conf, which is the wrong place. Let's change the above build sequence to this: 1) MACHINE=qemux86 bitbake xserver-xorg 2) MACHINE=othercore2machine bitbake xserver-xorg 3) MACHINE=crownbay bitbake xserver-xorg Oh look, I get 1.11.2 on crownbay regardless of this patch. > by building one thing and then > installing another. We're also inconsistent between the dpkg/rpm and > opkg backends. There is therefore definitely some kind of user > experience issue at stake here since this behaviour is not obvious, > expected or particularly correct. > > The fact the example is hardware related is not particularly relevant, > its the bigger picture I worry about I also worry about the bigger picture, especially about what Martin said about this breaking feeds. _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
