Re: [yocto] LAYERSERIES_COMPAT_ variable in the layer's recipe
Am Donnerstag, dem 01.12.2022 um 11:09 +0100 schrieb Alexander Kanavin: > And this is the commit that did this: > https://git.phytec.de/meta-phytec/commit/conf/layer.conf?id=8261e896d2b43211e7377feb38e919336d47c39f > > Shame on you, phytec. Shame on you. What you do in your layers perhaps > doesn't matter so much, but you also give everyone a bad example to > follow. Hi Alexander, instead of putting shame on people, I would propose, for a prospering community, to send out hints to maintainers, when an enforced mechanism is being disabled. I would have just ignored your email if Richard did not cleared things up with his patch. Thanks. Regards, Stefan > > Alex > > On Thu, 1 Dec 2022 at 08:47, Martin Jansa wrote: > > > > Agreed with Rudolf. > > > > If the layer maintainer didn't bother to do at least do one build with new > > release and adjust > > LAYERSERIES_COMPAT, then I don't consider that layer well maintained (it > > could be someone else who uses > > the layer, tests it with new release and sends PR to adjust > > LAYERSERIES_COMPAT). > > > > Recently I've also seen this: > > LAYERSERIES_COMPAT_phytec = "${LAYERSERIES_COMPAT_core}" > > > > which is also bad as it completely disables the check (seen in > > https://git.phytec.de/meta-phytec/tree/conf/layer.conf#n14). > > > > On Thu, Dec 1, 2022 at 7:06 AM Rudolf J Streif > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Nov 30, 2022, 20:27 Zoran wrote: > > > > > > > > Hello to Yocto community, > > > > > > > > As I am much more passive yocto wise these few years ( working on > > > > Android build systems and around, this is also a nightmare, I should > > > > say ;-) ), I have one Yocto question which I never really understood. > > > > > > > > I will ask it by example. I have one layer for the CAN tools and apps > > > > which I have created 4 years ago: > > > > https://github.com/ZoranStojsavljevic/meta-socketcan > > > > > > > > In there, in conf/layer.conf: > > > > https://github.com/ZoranStojsavljevic/meta-socketcan/blob/master/conf/layer.conf > > > > > > > > I have the following line (layers' compatibility): > > > > LAYERSERIES_COMPAT_meta-socketcan = "sumo thud warrior zeus dunfell > > > > gatesgarth hardknott honister kirkstone" > > > > > > > > I do not understand why we need to explicitly name releases for such > > > > simple generic layers?! > > > > > > > > > To me this indicates that the maintainer of the layer has tested the > > > compatibility of his layer with all > > > of these releases of the Yocto Project. > > > > > > A maintainer of a layer should make a deliberate decision of adding a > > > release or dropping one from the > > > compatibility list. It should be an attestation that the layer's > > > compatibility with the releases in the > > > list is actually maintained and tested. > > > > > > There have been changes to the syntax to conditional variables. Your > > > layer might well be compatible with > > > all of the releases and it's great if you tested it. But it's not a given. > > > > > > > > > > > > Instead, for a virtual example: > > > > LAYERSERIES_COMPAT_meta-socketcan = "${AUTOLAYER x}" > > > > > > > > So all the layers might be included (or for at least lets say x = 4 > > > > latest releases, where x = 0 would be include all)? I do understand > > > > that complex layers could NOT have such a definition (because of the > > > > dependencies), but for the generic layers (as such presented), this > > > > would be beneficial. > > > > > > > > > I never cared for ${AUTOREV}, which is similar, in the first place for > > > the very reason that it creates > > > inconsistent behavior. This would do the same thing. What would the last > > > 4 releases even mean? What is > > > the reference and where is it obtained from? > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you for the answers, > > > > Zee > > > > > > > > ___ > > > > > > > > > Best, > > > :rjs > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#58772): https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/yocto/message/58772 Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/95375670/21656 Group Owner: yocto+ow...@lists.yoctoproject.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/yocto/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [yocto] LAYERSERIES_COMPAT_ variable in the layer's recipe
Do not bother... This is a war between me and the entire YOCTO community of founders... It has been going for a while. Lot of INTEL guys and former INTEL guys against former INTEL guy. Me. But, I came here with Peace. It seems some people could not overcome their EGOs. I am trying to ask for a brainstorming. Now, I am trying to understand, why the backpors took place from kirkstone... Once my scripts were working for hardknott... But they do not work anymore. Well... Not my fault. Just trying to push forward. Zee ___ On Thu, Dec 1, 2022 at 6:01 PM Alexander Kanavin wrote: > > On Thu, 1 Dec 2022 at 17:41, Rudolf J Streif wrote: > > > > > > > Recently I've also seen this: > > > LAYERSERIES_COMPAT_phytec = "${LAYERSERIES_COMPAT_core}" > > > > > Oh no, now the entire Yocto Project world knows about this hack. Now we > > need a sanity checker for this in the insane class. :) > > It's a slippery slope. We can also for example make bitbake forcibly > not expand any variables in it, and write out an angry rant when > someone tries, and then I'm sure determined people will find a way > around that too. > > Alex -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#58711): https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/yocto/message/58711 Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/95375670/21656 Group Owner: yocto+ow...@lists.yoctoproject.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/yocto/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [yocto] LAYERSERIES_COMPAT_ variable in the layer's recipe
On Thu, 1 Dec 2022 at 17:41, Rudolf J Streif wrote: > > > > Recently I've also seen this: > > LAYERSERIES_COMPAT_phytec = "${LAYERSERIES_COMPAT_core}" > > > Oh no, now the entire Yocto Project world knows about this hack. Now we > need a sanity checker for this in the insane class. :) It's a slippery slope. We can also for example make bitbake forcibly not expand any variables in it, and write out an angry rant when someone tries, and then I'm sure determined people will find a way around that too. Alex -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#58709): https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/yocto/message/58709 Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/95375670/21656 Group Owner: yocto+ow...@lists.yoctoproject.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/yocto/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [yocto] LAYERSERIES_COMPAT_ variable in the layer's recipe
Recently I've also seen this: LAYERSERIES_COMPAT_phytec = "${LAYERSERIES_COMPAT_core}" Oh no, now the entire Yocto Project world knows about this hack. Now we need a sanity checker for this in the insane class. :) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#58708): https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/yocto/message/58708 Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/95375670/21656 Group Owner: yocto+ow...@lists.yoctoproject.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/yocto/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [yocto] LAYERSERIES_COMPAT_ variable in the layer's recipe
Agreed. Will revert. Zee ___ On Thu, Dec 1, 2022 at 1:48 PM Ross Burton wrote: > > On 1 Dec 2022, at 12:46, Zoran Stojsavljevic > wrote: > > But, could you, please, allow me to have my own original cannelloni > > recipe (yes, I developed it with some help from this community) on my > > own terms? I DID not copy it from anywhere. It is an ORIGINAL. > > As I explained in the bug I filed in your repository, the LICENSE statement > is the license of the contents of the packages, not the recipe itself. > > https://github.com/mguentner/cannelloni clearly says GPLv2. > > Ross -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#58705): https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/yocto/message/58705 Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/95375670/21656 Group Owner: yocto+ow...@lists.yoctoproject.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/yocto/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [yocto] LAYERSERIES_COMPAT_ variable in the layer's recipe
On 1 Dec 2022, at 12:46, Zoran Stojsavljevic wrote: > But, could you, please, allow me to have my own original cannelloni > recipe (yes, I developed it with some help from this community) on my > own terms? I DID not copy it from anywhere. It is an ORIGINAL. As I explained in the bug I filed in your repository, the LICENSE statement is the license of the contents of the packages, not the recipe itself. https://github.com/mguentner/cannelloni clearly says GPLv2. Ross -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#58703): https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/yocto/message/58703 Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/95375670/21656 Group Owner: yocto+ow...@lists.yoctoproject.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/yocto/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [yocto] LAYERSERIES_COMPAT_ variable in the layer's recipe
Martin, U R too fast. Speedy Gonzales. ;-) I do agree that this is the bad practice to change licences for the known recipes. For the can-utils and socketcand. I'll revert this back to GPLv2. But, could you, please, allow me to have my own original cannelloni recipe (yes, I developed it with some help from this community) on my own terms? I DID not copy it from anywhere. It is an ORIGINAL. Please, check. Do NOT overspeed. Please. Thank you for your advice. Zee ___ On Thu, Dec 1, 2022 at 12:18 PM Martin Jansa wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 1, 2022 at 12:09 PM Ross Burton wrote: >> >> On 1 Dec 2022, at 04:27, Zoran via lists.yoctoproject.org >> wrote: >> > I do not understand why we need to explicitly name releases for such >> > simple generic layers?! >> >> The compatibility is because over time things change: override syntax has >> changed, classes get added or removed, functionality may appear in bitbake. >> Sometimes the breakage is subtle, and a layer may parse and appear to build >> fine, but be broken. >> >> Your meta-socketcan layer is broken in honister onwards despite claiming >> compatibility, for example. > > > And here is another example why nobody should be using meta-socketcan: > https://github.com/ZoranStojsavljevic/meta-socketcan/commit/cefd86cd1def9ad2e63be527f8ce36a076d7e17c# > > You cannot change the declared LICENSE of the components, just because you > wish them to use the same license as the layer metadata, especially when > those components clearly declare different LICENSE in the source code, e.g.: > https://github.com/linux-can/socketcand/commit/a7ab9878d11ac187b92dcf48b6331c228f4f4b92 > > Using COMMON_LICENSE_DIR in LIC_FILES_CHKSUM is another anti-pattern which > just disables whole purpose of LIC_FILES_CHKSUM and this is acceptable only > for "pure-metadata" recipes like packagegroups or image recipes. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#58702): https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/yocto/message/58702 Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/95375670/21656 Group Owner: yocto+ow...@lists.yoctoproject.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/yocto/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [yocto] LAYERSERIES_COMPAT_ variable in the layer's recipe
Ross, It is now broken even in hardknott. I tried it, just as I tried it before (it worked before). I have no idea what the ERROR is: zoran.s@NBK0005U:~/projects2/yocto/bbb-yocto/build$ bitbake -k core-image-minimal Loading cache: 100% | | ETA: --:--:-- Loaded 0 entries from dependency cache. Parsing recipes: 100% |#| Time: 0:00:23 Parsing of 814 .bb files complete (0 cached, 814 parsed). 1438 targets, 41 skipped, 0 masked, 0 errors. NOTE: Resolving any missing task queue dependencies ERROR: Nothing RPROVIDES 'cannelloni' (but /home/zoran.s/projects2/yocto/bbb-yocto/poky/meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal.bb RDEPENDS on or otherwise requires it) NOTE: Runtime target 'cannelloni' is unbuildable, removing... Missing or unbuildable dependency chain was: ['cannelloni'] ERROR: Nothing RPROVIDES 'can-utils' (but /home/zoran.s/projects2/yocto/bbb-yocto/poky/meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal.bb RDEPENDS on or otherwise requires it) NOTE: Runtime target 'can-utils' is unbuildable, removing... Missing or unbuildable dependency chain was: ['can-utils'] ERROR: Nothing RPROVIDES 'socketcand' (but /home/zoran.s/projects2/yocto/bbb-yocto/poky/meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal.bb RDEPENDS on or otherwise requires it) NOTE: Runtime target 'socketcand' is unbuildable, removing... Missing or unbuildable dependency chain was: ['socketcand'] ERROR: Nothing RPROVIDES 'core-image-minimal' No eligible RPROVIDERs exist for 'core-image-minimal' NOTE: Runtime target 'core-image-minimal' is unbuildable, removing... Missing or unbuildable dependency chain was: ['core-image-minimal'] And my /home/zoran.s/projects2/yocto/bbb-yocto/poky/meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal.bb is: SUMMARY = "A small image just capable of allowing a device to boot." IMAGE_INSTALL = "packagegroup-core-boot ${CORE_IMAGE_EXTRA_INSTALL}" IMAGE_LINGUAS = " " LICENSE = "MIT" nano meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal.bb ## IMAGE_INSTALL_append = " kernel-modules" IMAGE_INSTALL_append = " \ kernel-modules \ cannelloni \ can-utils \ socketcand \ " IMAGE_ROOTFS_SIZE ?= "8192" IMAGE_ROOTFS_EXTRA_SPACE_append = "${@bb.utils.contains("DISTRO_FEATURES", "systemd", " + 4096", "" ,d)}" Zee On Thu, Dec 1, 2022 at 12:09 PM Ross Burton wrote: > > On 1 Dec 2022, at 04:27, Zoran via lists.yoctoproject.org > wrote: > > I do not understand why we need to explicitly name releases for such > > simple generic layers?! > > The compatibility is because over time things change: override syntax has > changed, classes get added or removed, functionality may appear in bitbake. > Sometimes the breakage is subtle, and a layer may parse and appear to build > fine, but be broken. > > Your meta-socketcan layer is broken in honister onwards despite claiming > compatibility, for example. > > Ross -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#58701): https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/yocto/message/58701 Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/95375670/21656 Group Owner: yocto+ow...@lists.yoctoproject.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/yocto/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [yocto] LAYERSERIES_COMPAT_ variable in the layer's recipe
On Thu, Dec 1, 2022 at 12:09 PM Ross Burton wrote: > On 1 Dec 2022, at 04:27, Zoran via lists.yoctoproject.org > wrote: > > I do not understand why we need to explicitly name releases for such > > simple generic layers?! > > The compatibility is because over time things change: override syntax has > changed, classes get added or removed, functionality may appear in > bitbake. Sometimes the breakage is subtle, and a layer may parse and > appear to build fine, but be broken. > > Your meta-socketcan layer is broken in honister onwards despite claiming > compatibility, for example. > And here is another example why nobody should be using meta-socketcan: https://github.com/ZoranStojsavljevic/meta-socketcan/commit/cefd86cd1def9ad2e63be527f8ce36a076d7e17c# You cannot change the declared LICENSE of the components, just because you wish them to use the same license as the layer metadata, especially when those components clearly declare different LICENSE in the source code, e.g.: https://github.com/linux-can/socketcand/commit/a7ab9878d11ac187b92dcf48b6331c228f4f4b92 Using COMMON_LICENSE_DIR in LIC_FILES_CHKSUM is another anti-pattern which just disables whole purpose of LIC_FILES_CHKSUM and this is acceptable only for "pure-metadata" recipes like packagegroups or image recipes. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#58700): https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/yocto/message/58700 Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/95375670/21656 Group Owner: yocto+ow...@lists.yoctoproject.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/yocto/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [yocto] LAYERSERIES_COMPAT_ variable in the layer's recipe
On 1 Dec 2022, at 04:27, Zoran via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote: > I do not understand why we need to explicitly name releases for such > simple generic layers?! The compatibility is because over time things change: override syntax has changed, classes get added or removed, functionality may appear in bitbake. Sometimes the breakage is subtle, and a layer may parse and appear to build fine, but be broken. Your meta-socketcan layer is broken in honister onwards despite claiming compatibility, for example. Ross -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#58699): https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/yocto/message/58699 Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/95375670/21656 Group Owner: yocto+ow...@lists.yoctoproject.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/yocto/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [yocto] LAYERSERIES_COMPAT_ variable in the layer's recipe
On Thu, 2022-12-01 at 11:09 +0100, Alexander Kanavin wrote: > And this is the commit that did this: > https://git.phytec.de/meta-phytec/commit/conf/layer.conf?id=8261e896d2b43211e7377feb38e919336d47c39f > > Shame on you, phytec. Shame on you. What you do in your layers perhaps > doesn't matter so much, but you also give everyone a bad example to > follow. That commit really is not in the spirit of things and I'm not happy people are doing that. I'd not be surprised if that stopped working soon. We had a huge problem with unmaintained layers where it was unclear which releases a master branch worked or had been tested with. An actively maintained layer should have no problem with updating this a couple of times a year. If that is an issue, it isn't actively maintained and it makes that clear. Cheers, Richard -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#58698): https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/yocto/message/58698 Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/95375670/21656 Group Owner: yocto+ow...@lists.yoctoproject.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/yocto/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [yocto] LAYERSERIES_COMPAT_ variable in the layer's recipe
And this is the commit that did this: https://git.phytec.de/meta-phytec/commit/conf/layer.conf?id=8261e896d2b43211e7377feb38e919336d47c39f Shame on you, phytec. Shame on you. What you do in your layers perhaps doesn't matter so much, but you also give everyone a bad example to follow. Alex On Thu, 1 Dec 2022 at 08:47, Martin Jansa wrote: > > Agreed with Rudolf. > > If the layer maintainer didn't bother to do at least do one build with new > release and adjust LAYERSERIES_COMPAT, then I don't consider that layer well > maintained (it could be someone else who uses the layer, tests it with new > release and sends PR to adjust LAYERSERIES_COMPAT). > > Recently I've also seen this: > LAYERSERIES_COMPAT_phytec = "${LAYERSERIES_COMPAT_core}" > > which is also bad as it completely disables the check (seen in > https://git.phytec.de/meta-phytec/tree/conf/layer.conf#n14). > > On Thu, Dec 1, 2022 at 7:06 AM Rudolf J Streif > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 30, 2022, 20:27 Zoran wrote: >>> >>> Hello to Yocto community, >>> >>> As I am much more passive yocto wise these few years ( working on >>> Android build systems and around, this is also a nightmare, I should >>> say ;-) ), I have one Yocto question which I never really understood. >>> >>> I will ask it by example. I have one layer for the CAN tools and apps >>> which I have created 4 years ago: >>> https://github.com/ZoranStojsavljevic/meta-socketcan >>> >>> In there, in conf/layer.conf: >>> https://github.com/ZoranStojsavljevic/meta-socketcan/blob/master/conf/layer.conf >>> >>> I have the following line (layers' compatibility): >>> LAYERSERIES_COMPAT_meta-socketcan = "sumo thud warrior zeus dunfell >>> gatesgarth hardknott honister kirkstone" >>> >>> I do not understand why we need to explicitly name releases for such >>> simple generic layers?! >> >> >> To me this indicates that the maintainer of the layer has tested the >> compatibility of his layer with all of these releases of the Yocto Project. >> >> A maintainer of a layer should make a deliberate decision of adding a >> release or dropping one from the compatibility list. It should be an >> attestation that the layer's compatibility with the releases in the list is >> actually maintained and tested. >> >> There have been changes to the syntax to conditional variables. Your layer >> might well be compatible with all of the releases and it's great if you >> tested it. But it's not a given. >>> >>> >>> Instead, for a virtual example: >>> LAYERSERIES_COMPAT_meta-socketcan = "${AUTOLAYER x}" >>> >>> So all the layers might be included (or for at least lets say x = 4 >>> latest releases, where x = 0 would be include all)? I do understand >>> that complex layers could NOT have such a definition (because of the >>> dependencies), but for the generic layers (as such presented), this >>> would be beneficial. >> >> >> I never cared for ${AUTOREV}, which is similar, in the first place for the >> very reason that it creates inconsistent behavior. This would do the same >> thing. What would the last 4 releases even mean? What is the reference and >> where is it obtained from? >>> >>> >>> Thank you for the answers, >>> Zee >>> >>> ___ >> >> >> Best, >> :rjs >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#58694): https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/yocto/message/58694 Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/95375670/21656 Group Owner: yocto+ow...@lists.yoctoproject.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/yocto/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [yocto] LAYERSERIES_COMPAT_ variable in the layer's recipe
Agreed with Rudolf. If the layer maintainer didn't bother to do at least do one build with new release and adjust LAYERSERIES_COMPAT, then I don't consider that layer well maintained (it could be someone else who uses the layer, tests it with new release and sends PR to adjust LAYERSERIES_COMPAT). Recently I've also seen this: LAYERSERIES_COMPAT_phytec = "${LAYERSERIES_COMPAT_core}" which is also bad as it completely disables the check (seen in https://git.phytec.de/meta-phytec/tree/conf/layer.conf#n14). On Thu, Dec 1, 2022 at 7:06 AM Rudolf J Streif wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 30, 2022, 20:27 Zoran wrote: > >> Hello to Yocto community, >> >> As I am much more passive yocto wise these few years ( working on >> Android build systems and around, this is also a nightmare, I should >> say ;-) ), I have one Yocto question which I never really understood. >> >> I will ask it by example. I have one layer for the CAN tools and apps >> which I have created 4 years ago: >> https://github.com/ZoranStojsavljevic/meta-socketcan >> >> In there, in conf/layer.conf: >> >> https://github.com/ZoranStojsavljevic/meta-socketcan/blob/master/conf/layer.conf >> >> I have the following line (layers' compatibility): >> LAYERSERIES_COMPAT_meta-socketcan = "sumo thud warrior zeus dunfell >> gatesgarth hardknott honister kirkstone" >> >> I do not understand why we need to explicitly name releases for such >> simple generic layers?! >> > > To me this indicates that the maintainer of the layer has tested the > compatibility of his layer with all of these releases of the Yocto Project. > > A maintainer of a layer should make a deliberate decision of adding a > release or dropping one from the compatibility list. It should be an > attestation that the layer's compatibility with the releases in the list is > actually maintained and tested. > > There have been changes to the syntax to conditional variables. Your layer > might well be compatible with all of the releases and it's great if you > tested it. But it's not a given. > >> >> Instead, for a virtual example: >> LAYERSERIES_COMPAT_meta-socketcan = "${AUTOLAYER x}" >> >> So all the layers might be included (or for at least lets say x = 4 >> latest releases, where x = 0 would be include all)? I do understand >> that complex layers could NOT have such a definition (because of the >> dependencies), but for the generic layers (as such presented), this >> would be beneficial. >> > > I never cared for ${AUTOREV}, which is similar, in the first place for the > very reason that it creates inconsistent behavior. This would do the same > thing. What would the last 4 releases even mean? What is the reference and > where is it obtained from? > >> >> Thank you for the answers, >> Zee > > ___ >> > > Best, > :rjs > >> >> >> >> > > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#58691): https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/yocto/message/58691 Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/95375670/21656 Group Owner: yocto+ow...@lists.yoctoproject.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/yocto/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [yocto] LAYERSERIES_COMPAT_ variable in the layer's recipe
On Wed, Nov 30, 2022, 20:27 Zoran wrote: > Hello to Yocto community, > > As I am much more passive yocto wise these few years ( working on > Android build systems and around, this is also a nightmare, I should > say ;-) ), I have one Yocto question which I never really understood. > > I will ask it by example. I have one layer for the CAN tools and apps > which I have created 4 years ago: > https://github.com/ZoranStojsavljevic/meta-socketcan > > In there, in conf/layer.conf: > > https://github.com/ZoranStojsavljevic/meta-socketcan/blob/master/conf/layer.conf > > I have the following line (layers' compatibility): > LAYERSERIES_COMPAT_meta-socketcan = "sumo thud warrior zeus dunfell > gatesgarth hardknott honister kirkstone" > > I do not understand why we need to explicitly name releases for such > simple generic layers?! > To me this indicates that the maintainer of the layer has tested the compatibility of his layer with all of these releases of the Yocto Project. A maintainer of a layer should make a deliberate decision of adding a release or dropping one from the compatibility list. It should be an attestation that the layer's compatibility with the releases in the list is actually maintained and tested. There have been changes to the syntax to conditional variables. Your layer might well be compatible with all of the releases and it's great if you tested it. But it's not a given. > > Instead, for a virtual example: > LAYERSERIES_COMPAT_meta-socketcan = "${AUTOLAYER x}" > > So all the layers might be included (or for at least lets say x = 4 > latest releases, where x = 0 would be include all)? I do understand > that complex layers could NOT have such a definition (because of the > dependencies), but for the generic layers (as such presented), this > would be beneficial. > I never cared for ${AUTOREV}, which is similar, in the first place for the very reason that it creates inconsistent behavior. This would do the same thing. What would the last 4 releases even mean? What is the reference and where is it obtained from? > > Thank you for the answers, > Zee ___ > Best, :rjs > > > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#58690): https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/yocto/message/58690 Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/95375670/21656 Group Owner: yocto+ow...@lists.yoctoproject.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/yocto/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[yocto] LAYERSERIES_COMPAT_ variable in the layer's recipe
Hello to Yocto community, As I am much more passive yocto wise these few years ( working on Android build systems and around, this is also a nightmare, I should say ;-) ), I have one Yocto question which I never really understood. I will ask it by example. I have one layer for the CAN tools and apps which I have created 4 years ago: https://github.com/ZoranStojsavljevic/meta-socketcan In there, in conf/layer.conf: https://github.com/ZoranStojsavljevic/meta-socketcan/blob/master/conf/layer.conf I have the following line (layers' compatibility): LAYERSERIES_COMPAT_meta-socketcan = "sumo thud warrior zeus dunfell gatesgarth hardknott honister kirkstone" I do not understand why we need to explicitly name releases for such simple generic layers?! Instead, for a virtual example: LAYERSERIES_COMPAT_meta-socketcan = "${AUTOLAYER x}" So all the layers might be included (or for at least lets say x = 4 latest releases, where x = 0 would be include all)? I do understand that complex layers could NOT have such a definition (because of the dependencies), but for the generic layers (as such presented), this would be beneficial. Thank you for the answers, Zee ___ -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#58689): https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/yocto/message/58689 Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/95375670/21656 Group Owner: yocto+ow...@lists.yoctoproject.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/yocto/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-