[yocto] Undefining a variable in a recipe?

[Otavio Salvador]

On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 10:11 AM, Alex J Lennon
<ajlennon at dynamicdevices.co.uk> wrote:
>
> On 02/05/2014 14:07, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Alex J Lennon
>> <ajlennon at 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
>>>> <ajlennon at 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.
>
> Or indeed, would be not be reasonable to modify the uboot-config.bbclass
> such that
> it tested for and discarded empty strings in UBOOT_MACHINE / UBOOT_CONFIG
> which would seem to be a more complete test and would eliminate the
> problem ?

Like: http://privatepaste.com/8046479967

>> 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.
>>
>
> You've lost me. Why am I not setting PREFERRED_VERSION accordingly? I have
> two recipes in the checkout and I have configured prefer the older one,
> which
> seems entirely reasonable.

Your log say's it looks for u-boot-imx 2013.04 and not for 2009.08.


-- 
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