[yocto] Alternative to _git.bb convention for unstable versions?

[keith.derrick]

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 <martin.jansa at gmail.com>
Date: Friday, September 13, 2019 at 8:35 AM
To: "Keith Derrick/LGEUS Advanced Platform(keith.derrick at lge.com)" <keith.derrick at lge.com>
Cc: "yocto at yoctoproject.org" <yocto at 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 <keith.derrick at lge.com<mailto:keith.derrick at 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 at yoctoproject.org<mailto:yocto at yoctoproject.org>
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.yoctoproject.org/pipermail/yocto/attachments/20190913/66224696/attachment-0001.html>