[meta-ti] [PATCH] adjust BBPATH to be a good citizen of layer world
Khem Raj
raj.khem at gmail.com
Thu Nov 7 10:41:41 PST 2013
On Nov 7, 2013, at 10:20 AM, Denys Dmytriyenko <denys at ti.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 09:57:09AM -0800, Khem Raj wrote:
>>
>> On Nov 7, 2013, at 9:47 AM, Denys Dmytriyenko <denys at ti.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 09:42:50AM -0800, Khem Raj wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Nov 7, 2013, at 9:37 AM, Denys Dmytriyenko <denys at ti.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 09:15:40AM -0800, Khem Raj wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Nov 7, 2013, at 8:59 AM, Denys Dmytriyenko <denys at ti.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 08:55:55PM -0800, Khem Raj wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Maupin, Chase <chase.maupin at ti.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> This seems like a reversal of http://arago-project.org/git/meta-ti.git?a=commit;h=dabd83e96fe99d0c3d1a88be4d1637831526d217
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Looks like there may be a need to cover the different use cases and
>>>>>>>>> understand what each person is trying to do :)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ah I see what caused this all pain. So now meta-ti is odd ball out.
>>>>>>>> this patch should have never gone in.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Khem,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you remember, we discussed this with Richard and he suggested this as a
>>>>>>> solution to the ordering problem. Otherwise people tend to append any extra
>>>>>>> layers _after_ oe-core, which should be the other way around in order to
>>>>>>> override anything in there…
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think the problem is when you have many other layers then the whole
>>>>>> paradigm changes to it and you end up with same issue upside down. I think
>>>>>> how you order bblayer.conf can control the override of oe-core, I wish if
>>>>>> distro’s could control the layer.conf for each bsp layer then it wouldnt
>>>>>> matter as much
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree this is a bigger issue. I looked at some layers and found few that
>>>>> prepend themselves, while most of others just append.
>>>>>
>>>>> The order inside bblayers.conf is much more important than people let to
>>>>> believe. For example, if multiple layers define the machine config, the first
>>>>> one listed in bblayers.conf wins - this is a real problem for beagleboard.conf
>>>>> that is currently being defined in meta-ti as well as meta-yocto-bsp (as a
>>>>> reference platform) and meta-beagleboard too. Very soon the same problem will
>>>>> happen to beaglebone.conf, when meta-yocto-bsp picks it up as a reference...
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway, the biggest issue I'm trying to work around with this change is the
>>>>> "shadowing" of the new-style DTBs that I ported from Dora to Dylan. If meta-ti
>>>>> is not in front of oe-core, the old-style DTBs come into play and DTBs are not
>>>>> built at all. So, this is not really an issue for Dora or master, and those
>>>>> don't need to be prepended after all…
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Now its even more intriguing since you changed meta-ti/master and I would
>>>> have expected this change to show up in meta-ti/dylan or are you claiming
>>>> all sort of oe-core branches to work with meta-ti/master thats a perilous
>>>> path.
>>>
>>> It's in meta-ti/dylan AND meta-ti/master,
>>
>> yes. So can we change the master please ?
>
> I'll think about it ;)
>
>
>> oe-core is also appending itself in BBPATH in oe-core/master
>
> Yes, I know.
>
>
>> and so are meta-yocto-bsp and meta-beagleboard
>
> Also quite aware of that.
>
> But since you mention meta-yocto-bsp, which is part of Poky, do you know that
> meta-yocto prepends itself in front? And I believe there were one or two more
> obscure layers doing that as well…
we can coerce them to change as well. if I have time I will go through
this on layers index. Its good in general to have this since its beneficial
and does larger good.
>
> BTW, I like the comment you made in meta-oe long time ago:
>
> # It really depends on order of the layers appearing in BBLAYERS
> # variable in toplevel bblayers.conf file, where bitbake will search
> # for .inc files and others where bitbake uses BBPATH since it will
> # search the directories from first to last as specified in BBPATH
> # Therefore if you want a given layer to be considered high priority
> # for the .inc and .conf etc. then consider it adding at the beginning
> # of BBPATH. For bblayers bitbake will use BBFILES_PRIORITY to resolve
> # the recipe contention so the order of directories in BBFILES does
> # not matter.
>
> But the problem is that people don't read comments and don't bother with
> BBLAYERS order, hence I had to do what you suggested above with BBPATH order
> instead!
amen
>
>
>> so with mere ordering of these layers in your distro’s bblayer.conf you
>> should be able to get desired behaviour.
>
> Well, it's not really a problem for Arago or Angstrom, as both provide setup
> tools to generate the correct bblayers.conf with the proper order of BBLAYERS.
> But the problem is really with Poky, as it expects people to manually add
> extra layers to bblayers.conf and people just tend to append everything AFTER
> oe-core and meta-yocto and meta-yocto-bsp. So, it's really Poky that is broken
> or rather unclear…
yes and I think as long as all layers follow append model it will bring some santiy
to poky model as well.
More information about the meta-ti
mailing list