Re: [yocto] Alternative to _git.bb convention for unstable versions?
Hello Keith, I’m not sure if this is any good, I’m not all that experienced with Yocto. But would it be an idea to add PREFERRED_VERSION ?= “1.0” in your layer.conf to provide your users with a sane default? Cheers, Erik On 13 Sep 2019, 18:00 +0200, keith.derrick , wrote: Thanks Martin. I was trying to avoid everyone in my org having to add anything manually to their local.conf (we will be using the _git version) – and dealing with the “help me” emails whenever they forgot. I was thinking that you would want one or the other, but I suppose if there’s a way to screw up, users will find it ☹ Eventually, we’ll switch our build to a custom DISTRO and the problem will go away. Just wish there was somewhere else the PREFERRED_VERSION statements could go. From: Martin Jansa Date: Friday, September 13, 2019 at 8:35 AM To: "Keith Derrick/LGEUS Advanced Platform(keith.derr...@lge.com)" Cc: "yocto@yoctoproject.org" Subject: Re: [yocto] Alternative to _git.bb convention for unstable versions? You can easily add .inc file which will set all the PREFERRED_VERSIONs for all components you need and then the users will just add an "require" of this .inc files to their local.conf. "somepackage-unstable.bb<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsomepackage-unstable.bb=02%7C01%7C%7C525f37037f094d9a306608d738637a54%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637039872221106440=0imtxCVvoxQCNauLifAjpvC%2FsXWQtLoznSEdNhh%2FelI%3D=0>" or "somepackage-devel.bb<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsomepackage-devel.bb=02%7C01%7C%7C525f37037f094d9a306608d738637a54%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637039872221116451=apC3OqdaU3XDEHJKbc58XNhMSBEFMKgorcKtd1U%2Ftqc%3D=0>" this will make it 2 different components - not 2 different versions of the same component - which makes this much more complicated, you'll need PREFERRED_PROVIDERs for every dependency and in the end you will need to make sure that whole build is using the same set of providers, because if A depends on somepackage-unstable B depends on A and somepackage-devel then building B will fail in prepare-recipe-sysrooot, because A will pull somepackage-unstable which will probably conflict with somepackage-devel by providing the same files (in just different version). You can see how openssl10 and openssl "worked" if you build didn't use the same one for all the recipes. Cheers, On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 5:27 PM keith.derrick mailto:keith.derr...@lge.com>> wrote: I am currently creating a new layer (which will eventually be made generally available). I need to provide both a versioned recipe, and an "unstable" one. Currently I have somepackage_1.0.bb<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsomepackage_1.0.bb=02%7C01%7C%7C525f37037f094d9a306608d738637a54%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637039872221126468=4Li0Hl3yPEh6pNxBuVno3pZFkJbFkSVVGKlM4AabY50%3D=0> and somepackage_git.bb<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsomepackage_git.bb=02%7C01%7C%7C525f37037f094d9a306608d738637a54%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637039872221136479=1K%2BlEwtPd6VUNMJNfPxCGO2hNtcnigU3MEnuHTDUZpw%3D=0> which are working fine. However, using the "_git" approach (with DEFAULT_PREFERENCE = "-1") requires the use of PREFERRED_VERSION in either local.conf or a distro.conf. I've tried putting it in the image files, and that doesn't work. If you are not creating your own DISTRO, and instead just adding the layer to a straight poky/meta build, you seem to be pretty much stuck with adding 3 PREFERRED_VERSION statements (target, -native, and nativesdk- variants) to local.conf. I'd rather not require that of users of the layer. I'm considering instead using either "somepackage-unstable.bb<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsomepackage-unstable.bb=02%7C01%7C%7C525f37037f094d9a306608d738637a54%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637039872221146485=9VAs45eFE4%2BAt2g0IsfEjIzdbgoJseLmhjUFDAPEThc%3D=0>" or "somepackage-devel.bb<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsomepackage-devel.bb=02%7C01%7C%7C525f37037f094d9a306608d738637a54%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637039872221156502=q2hpeGg01Sz9sL0vqwO2CK829DWMgqGpvZ0YSbzgcws%3D=0>" instead of "sompackage_git.bb<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsompackage_git.bb=02%7C01%7C%7C525f37037f094d9a306608d738637a54%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435%7C1%7C0%7C637039872221166495=R5oIMlFzkBDJa4MA%2FRmmrBo%2BXmmg0MJzA6AjaTRRy2o%3D=0>". This allows a simple selection of either RDEPENDS = "somepackage" or RDEPENDS = "somepackage-devel" to add the desired one to an image. However, n
Re: [yocto] Alternative to _git.bb convention for unstable versions?
Thanks Martin. I was trying to avoid everyone in my org having to add anything manually to their local.conf (we will be using the _git version) – and dealing with the “help me” emails whenever they forgot. I was thinking that you would want one or the other, but I suppose if there’s a way to screw up, users will find it ☹ Eventually, we’ll switch our build to a custom DISTRO and the problem will go away. Just wish there was somewhere else the PREFERRED_VERSION statements could go. From: Martin Jansa Date: Friday, September 13, 2019 at 8:35 AM To: "Keith Derrick/LGEUS Advanced Platform(keith.derr...@lge.com)" Cc: "yocto@yoctoproject.org" Subject: Re: [yocto] Alternative to _git.bb convention for unstable versions? You can easily add .inc file which will set all the PREFERRED_VERSIONs for all components you need and then the users will just add an "require" of this .inc files to their local.conf. "somepackage-unstable.bb<http://somepackage-unstable.bb>" or "somepackage-devel.bb<http://somepackage-devel.bb>" this will make it 2 different components - not 2 different versions of the same component - which makes this much more complicated, you'll need PREFERRED_PROVIDERs for every dependency and in the end you will need to make sure that whole build is using the same set of providers, because if A depends on somepackage-unstable B depends on A and somepackage-devel then building B will fail in prepare-recipe-sysrooot, because A will pull somepackage-unstable which will probably conflict with somepackage-devel by providing the same files (in just different version). You can see how openssl10 and openssl "worked" if you build didn't use the same one for all the recipes. Cheers, On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 5:27 PM keith.derrick mailto:keith.derr...@lge.com>> wrote: I am currently creating a new layer (which will eventually be made generally available). I need to provide both a versioned recipe, and an "unstable" one. Currently I have somepackage_1.0.bb<http://somepackage_1.0.bb> and somepackage_git.bb<http://somepackage_git.bb> which are working fine. However, using the "_git" approach (with DEFAULT_PREFERENCE = "-1") requires the use of PREFERRED_VERSION in either local.conf or a distro.conf. I've tried putting it in the image files, and that doesn't work. If you are not creating your own DISTRO, and instead just adding the layer to a straight poky/meta build, you seem to be pretty much stuck with adding 3 PREFERRED_VERSION statements (target, -native, and nativesdk- variants) to local.conf. I'd rather not require that of users of the layer. I'm considering instead using either "somepackage-unstable.bb<http://somepackage-unstable.bb>" or "somepackage-devel.bb<http://somepackage-devel.bb>" instead of "sompackage_git.bb<http://sompackage_git.bb>". This allows a simple selection of either RDEPENDS = "somepackage" or RDEPENDS = "somepackage-devel" to add the desired one to an image. However, neither "-devel" or "-unstable" have the right feel for the suffix. If, for example, you are picking up an older commit (between versions say) it might well be completely stable. Does the community have a naming convention for this type of recipe? Failing that, is there somewhere else in the met-data the PREFERRED_VERSION statement can go other than a configuration file? Thanks Keith Derrick -- ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org<mailto:yocto@yoctoproject.org> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto -- ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Re: [yocto] Alternative to _git.bb convention for unstable versions?
You can easily add .inc file which will set all the PREFERRED_VERSIONs for all components you need and then the users will just add an "require" of this .inc files to their local.conf. "somepackage-unstable.bb" or "somepackage-devel.bb" this will make it 2 different components - not 2 different versions of the same component - which makes this much more complicated, you'll need PREFERRED_PROVIDERs for every dependency and in the end you will need to make sure that whole build is using the same set of providers, because if A depends on somepackage-unstable B depends on A and somepackage-devel then building B will fail in prepare-recipe-sysrooot, because A will pull somepackage-unstable which will probably conflict with somepackage-devel by providing the same files (in just different version). You can see how openssl10 and openssl "worked" if you build didn't use the same one for all the recipes. Cheers, On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 5:27 PM keith.derrick wrote: > I am currently creating a new layer (which will eventually be made > generally available). I need to provide both a versioned recipe, and an > "unstable" one. > > > Currently I have somepackage_1.0.bb and somepackage_git.bb which are > working fine. > > > However, using the "_git" approach (with DEFAULT_PREFERENCE = "-1") > requires the use of PREFERRED_VERSION in either local.conf or > a distro.conf. I've tried putting it in the image files, and that doesn't > work. > > > If you are not creating your own DISTRO, and instead just adding the layer > to a straight poky/meta build, you seem to be pretty much stuck with adding > 3 PREFERRED_VERSION statements (target, -native, and nativesdk- variants) > to local.conf. I'd rather not require that of users of the layer. > > > I'm considering instead using either "somepackage-unstable.bb" or " > somepackage-devel.bb" instead of "sompackage_git.bb". This allows a > simple selection of either RDEPENDS = "somepackage" or RDEPENDS = > "somepackage-devel" to add the desired one to an image. > > > However, neither "-devel" or "-unstable" have the right feel for the > suffix. If, for example, you are picking up an older commit (between > versions say) it might well be completely stable. > > > Does the community have a naming convention for this type of recipe? > Failing that, is there somewhere else in the met-data the PREFERRED_VERSION > statement can go other than a configuration file? > > > Thanks > > Keith Derrick > > > -- > ___ > yocto mailing list > yocto@yoctoproject.org > https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto > -- ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
[yocto] Alternative to _git.bb convention for unstable versions?
I am currently creating a new layer (which will eventually be made generally available). I need to provide both a versioned recipe, and an "unstable" one. Currently I have somepackage_1.0.bb and somepackage_git.bb which are working fine. However, using the "_git" approach (with DEFAULT_PREFERENCE = "-1") requires the use of PREFERRED_VERSION in either local.conf or a distro.conf. I've tried putting it in the image files, and that doesn't work. If you are not creating your own DISTRO, and instead just adding the layer to a straight poky/meta build, you seem to be pretty much stuck with adding 3 PREFERRED_VERSION statements (target, -native, and nativesdk- variants) to local.conf. I'd rather not require that of users of the layer. I'm considering instead using either "somepackage-unstable.bb" or "somepackage-devel.bb" instead of "sompackage_git.bb". This allows a simple selection of either RDEPENDS = "somepackage" or RDEPENDS = "somepackage-devel" to add the desired one to an image. However, neither "-devel" or "-unstable" have the right feel for the suffix. If, for example, you are picking up an older commit (between versions say) it might well be completely stable. Does the community have a naming convention for this type of recipe? Failing that, is there somewhere else in the met-data the PREFERRED_VERSION statement can go other than a configuration file? Thanks Keith Derrick -- ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
