Chris Larson wrote: > On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 6:50 AM, Mike Westerhof <[email protected]> wrote: > >> After a recent commit that rearranged where (and how) SRCREVs are defined, >> building results in: >> >> NOTE: preferred version 2.6.27.8+svnr1 of linux-ixp4xx not available (for >> item kernel) >> NOTE: preferred version 2.6.27.8+svnr1 of linux-ixp4xx not available (for >> item kernel-module-ext2) >> NOTE: preferred version 2.6.27.8+svnr1 of linux-ixp4xx not available (for >> item kernel-module-jbd) >> (etc.) >> >> Note the bogus "svnr1" on the end -- I think this has happened because >> someone changed OE to define SRCREVs in each package. So now, deep in >> recipes/linux/linux-ixp4xx.inc, we find: >> >> SRCREV = "1089" >> >> I think that's wrong. >> >> It *does* (sort of) work -- it actually results in that SRCREV (1089) being >> built, despite the messages (above) telling you that it can't find the >> PREFERRED_VERSION with SRCREV == 1. >> >> But what that line does is not really what we (the ixp4xx kernel >> maintainers) had in mind. >> >> The idea is that the SRCREV, along with the kernel version, would be >> defined as a preferred version, like this line which is in >> machine/include/ixp4xx.inc: >> >> PREFERRED_VERSION_linux-ixp4xx ?= "2.6.24.7+svnr${SRCREV}" >> >> Of course, SlugOS overrides that because that distro prefers a more recent >> kerrnel: >> >> PREFERRED_VERSION_linux-ixp4xx = "2.6.27.8+svnr${SRCREV}" >> >> That's not really a "recent" kernel, of course -- my local.conf file has a >> more recent one that I've not yet committed. The point is that the way it >> *USED* to work, one could use the normal means to set both PREFERRED_VERSION >> and SRCREV. With the recent commit, we can't do that anymore. >> >> Apparently SRCREV isn't defined soon enough with this new structure, so we >> get the messages about svnr1 not being available. And, of course, one >> cannot override the preferred version anymore due to the use of "=" instead >> of "=?" for the assignment. (At the very least, when all the SRCREVs were >> moved into the recipes, shouldn't the weak assignments have been preserved?) >> >> At any rate, I wish to remove the bogus messages about svnr1, and I want to >> restore the behavior that would allow me to provide the SRCREV in my >> local.conf. What is the correct way to do this with the new "world order" >> as it relates to SRCREVs? To what config file do I move that >> SRCREV="1089"? Who would I anger if I just put it back to the way it was? > > >>From what RP was saying on IRC the other day, you can utilize "%" in version > preferences for versions that include srcrev, as a marker. 2.6.27.8+svnr%. > I haven't looked at that code, though, so I may be completely out in left > field here :)
NOTE: preferred version 2.6.27.8+svnr% of linux-ixp4xx not available (for item kernel) NOTE: preferred version 2.6.27.8+svnr% of linux-ixp4xx not available (for item kernel-module-ext2) NOTE: preferred version 2.6.27.8+svnr% of linux-ixp4xx not available (for item kernel-module-jbd) :( Does this %-sign feature perhaps require a new bitbake version? -Mike _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
