On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Alex J Lennon <ajlen...@dynamicdevices.co.uk> wrote: > > On 02/05/2014 13:56, Otavio Salvador wrote: >> On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 2:24 AM, Alex J Lennon >> <ajlen...@dynamicdevices.co.uk> wrote: >> ... >>> So I guess I'm at the point where I'm wondering if a getVar() with a >>> flag is behaving as you would expect it to, >>> or how I might go about ensuring either UBOOT_MACHINE or UBOOT_CONFIG >>> isn't defined? >>> >>> Thanks in advance for any advice, >> I think we have a simple error error. You are mixing a recipe, which >> is old and a metadata layer with new concepts. >> >> The u-boot-imx, in 2009.08 recipe, used to set the UBOOT_MACHINE in >> the recipe as it was left as a fallback in case user needed it and the >> value was different from newer releases. >> >> In your case, the easier is to make a new yourmachine.conf and use the >> UBOOT_CONFIG or UBOOT_MACHINE setting there so it will work just fine. >> > > If I have to do that, then I have to do that. > > However if I could just undefine one of the two variables defined in the > meta-fsl-arm > layer then I could continue with what I am doing without having to spend > the time > right now to rework the configuration, which is wasted effort for me, as > I will be moving > up to the new version of u-boot in the near future. > > Is there no simple way to undefine a variable in a recipe?
You can change the recipe byhand. This is ugly and I wouldn't do it. I do think you are wasting more time trying to 'workaround' it than fixing it. Comment the UBOOT_MACHINE setting in the u-boot-imx recipe and move on. The log is clear you're not setting the PREFERRED_VERSION accordingly and you should. -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems http://www.ossystems.com.br http://code.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854 Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750 -- _______________________________________________ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto