> I need an updated python-<foo> package for an unrelated package And how far will you go?
If you want just newer python-<foo> and nothing else, will you take other changes to other python-* recipes from meta-python layer? There is a lot of recipes there, if you're so picky about updates, then you shouldn't update whole oe-core as well. On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 1:51 AM, Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfi...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 1:52 PM, Khem Raj <raj.k...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 2/20/18 9:13 AM, Bruce Ashfield wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 11:50 AM, akuster808 <akuster...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> On 02/20/2018 02:45 AM, Burton, Ross wrote: > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> Is now a good time to talk about splitting up meta-oe? Some layers > are > >>>> actively developed and maintained (one example: meta-python), others > are > >>>> basically bitrotting and only get touched when something else causes > them > >>>> to break world builds (one example: meta-gnome). I've long felt that > >>>> meta-oe should be split up and the high quality layers managed in > their own > >>>> repositories so patches to them don't get held up by breakage in other > >>>> sub-layers. > >>> You make it sound like meta-oe is not a high quality layer. I could > >>> make the same claim about oe-core master. > >>> > >>> I don't see the connection in patches being held up due to breakage in > >>> other sub layers. This only happens if the dependency fail to build. > >>> > >>> You lose control over the quality in current layers that reside in > >>> meta-openbedded just like you have no control over all the other layers > >>> residing in the community. It makes maintaining stable versions very > >>> difficult. Well, unless The Yocto Project takes over them.. I guess > that > >>> would work then. > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Another advantage of splitting out the high quality layers is that > we'd > >>>> like to look at running more community layers through the Yocto > >>>> autobuilder, and granular layers make that easier to manage. > >>> I thought not including layers in bblayers.conf was easy enough. > >>>> > >>>> Comments? > >>> > >>> What problem do you thing you are trying to solve here? > >> > >> My unrelated issues are that I can't update one layer, without getting > >> all of the updates. > >> .. but that is both a good thing (i.e. they are all tested together, > >> so you know that the > >> single SRCREV update is good for all layers), and a bad thing (when > >> you just want a > >> new python recipe update from meta-python, but don't want other > changes). > >> > > > > if you dont include the layers in your BBLAYERS and they become > > effectively non existent, unless you are on metered internet connection, > > where downloading unused stuff would save you bandwidth, it should be > > ok. No ? > > Its not that. > > I *am* building the different layers, but say I have a stable set of > packages > and working images .. but for whatever reason, I need an updated > python-<foo> > package for an unrelated package, or some other layer that needs a newer > version, etc. > > How do I get that, without taking updates to all the layers ? .. and > layers that > I really didn't want to update. I have to do some sort of combo-layer, > carry > my own copy of the recipe, etc. > > So there are definitely ways to do it, I'm just pointing out that I > end up taking > some build failures/issues from time to time on packages I didn't really > need to update. > > The flip side of that argument is that all of the layers and sub layers > have > gone through some sort of global build, and hence I know that they all have > worked together for someone. If I can update pieces individually, I break > that .. and I own the broken bits after that .. which again, goes to > my point that > fixing one workflow/issue can break another :D > > Bruce > > > > >> It is very likely that splitting the layer would help one issue, but > >> make the other worse. > >> > >> So no solution from me, just an observation about potential issue. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> > >> Bruce > >> > >>> > >>> - armin > >>>> > >>>> Ross > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Openembedded-devel mailing list > >>> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org > >>> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > "Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await > thee at its end" > -- > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-devel mailing list > Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel > -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel