In consistancy in the defition of BBFILE_COLLECTIONS in layer.conf
Opps sent from wrong account.
I was working with some layerinfo code, and I noticed that the values of BBFILE_COLLECTIONS in layer.conf in the meta-intel repo are kind of all over the map:
for each in */conf/layer.conf; do cat $each; done | grep BBFILE_COLLECTIONSBBFILE_COLLECTIONS_crownbay += "crownbay" BBFILE_COLLECTIONS_crownbay-noemgd += "crownbay-noemgd" BBFILE_COLLECTIONS_fishriver += "fishriver" BBFILE_COLLECTIONS_jasperforest += "jasperforest" BBFILE_COLLECTIONS_sugarbay += "sugarbay"
For the above layers when I just list out oe-core and one of the above, the results from BBFILE_COLLECTIONS ends up
just being what ever was set above.
BBFILE_COLLECTIONS += "n450"BBFILE_COLLECTIONS += "emenlow"
When using these layers, the final BBFILE_COLLECTIONS is the list of all the layers as expected.
Was just curious if there was a intentional reason why the difference(i.e. is there some code that I am missing that fixes this up)? -- Jeremy Puhlman Montavista Sofware, LLC.
Quoted 16 lines · Jeremy Puhlman
Opps sent from wrong account.
I was working with some layerinfo code, and I noticed that the values of
BBFILE_COLLECTIONSin layer.conf in the meta-intel repo are kind of all over the map:for each in
*/conf/layer.conf; do cat $each; done | grepBBFILE_COLLECTIONSBBFILE_COLLECTIONS_crownbay+= "crownbay" BBFILE_COLLECTIONS_crownbay-noemgd += "crownbay-noemgd"BBFILE_COLLECTIONS_fishriver+= "fishriver"BBFILE_COLLECTIONS_jasperforest+= "jasperforest"BBFILE_COLLECTIONS_sugarbay+= "sugarbay"For the above layers when I just list out oe-core and one of the above, the results from
BBFILE_COLLECTIONSends up
just being what ever was set above.
Quoted 8 lines
BBFILE_COLLECTIONS+= "n450"BBFILE_COLLECTIONS+= "emenlow"When using these layers, the final
BBFILE_COLLECTIONSis the list of all the layers as expected.Was just curious if there was a intentional reason why the difference(i.e. is there some code that I am missing that fixes this up)?
No, not intentional - looks like a case of an overzealous overriding typo that propagated. I'll cook up a patch to make them all just 'BBFILE_COLLECTIONS += xxxx'
Tom
Quoted 6 lines
-- Jeremy Puhlman Montavista Sofware, LLC.
_______________________________________________
yocto mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Quoted 7 lines
No, not intentional - looks like a case of an overzealous overriding typo that propagated. I'll cook up a patch to make them all just '
BBFILE_COLLECTIONS+= xxxx'Tom
Good deal. Just wanted to double check. Thanks for the quick response.
Signature · 2 lines
Jeremy Puhlman Montavista Sofware, LLC.
Quoted 23 lines · Tom Zanussi
Quoted 22 lines · Jeremy Puhlman
Opps sent from wrong account.
I was working with some layerinfo code, and I noticed that the values of
BBFILE_COLLECTIONSin layer.conf in the meta-intel repo are kind of all over the map:for each in
*/conf/layer.conf; do cat $each; done | grepBBFILE_COLLECTIONSBBFILE_COLLECTIONS_crownbay+= "crownbay" BBFILE_COLLECTIONS_crownbay-noemgd += "crownbay-noemgd"BBFILE_COLLECTIONS_fishriver+= "fishriver"BBFILE_COLLECTIONS_jasperforest+= "jasperforest"BBFILE_COLLECTIONS_sugarbay+= "sugarbay"For the above layers when I just list out oe-core and one of the above, the results from
BBFILE_COLLECTIONSends up
just being what ever was set above.
BBFILE_COLLECTIONS+= "n450"BBFILE_COLLECTIONS+= "emenlow"When using these layers, the final
BBFILE_COLLECTIONSis the list of all the layers as expected.
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 2 lines
Was just curious if there was a intentional reason why the difference(i.e. is there some code that I am missing that fixes this up)?
No, not intentional - looks like a case of an overzealous overriding typo that propagated. I'll cook up a patch to make them all just '
BBFILE_COLLECTIONS+= xxxx'
Using machine override has one small benefit
when I have meta-nokia layer which has only recipes withCOMPATIBLE_MACHINE = "nokia900" and I'm building different machine (like
om-gta02) I get this warning:
WARNING: No bb files matched BBFILE_PATTERN_nokia-layer '^/OE/shr-core/meta-smartphone/meta-nokia/' because all bb files from this layer are ignored because ofCOMPATIBLE_MACHINE
if I change it like this
-BBFILE_COLLECTIONS += "nokia-layer" +BBFILE_COLLECTIONS_nokia900 += "nokia-layer"
maybe with more overrides per layer.conf if it supports multiple machines, the warning is gone, but seems like sstate checksums are different again, because during test I changed only this and another gcc rebuild is in runqueue now :/.
Signature · 1 line
Martin 'JaMa' Jansa jabber: [email protected]
Quoted 8 lines · Martin Jansa
Using machine override has one small benefit
when I have meta-nokia layer which has only recipes with
COMPATIBLE_MACHINE= "nokia900" and I'm building different machine (like
om-gta02) I get this warning:
WARNING: No bb files matched BBFILE_PATTERN_nokia-layer '^/OE/shr-core/meta-smartphone/meta-nokia/' because all bb files from this layer are ignored because ofCOMPATIBLE_MACHINE
I think there is a change on bitbake master which should fix some of the cases where this warning was appearing (where a layer only contained .bbappend files).
Quoted 7 lines
if I change it like this
(quoted diff) +1
-1-BBFILE_COLLECTIONS += "nokia-layer" +BBFILE_COLLECTIONS_nokia900 += "nokia-layer"maybe with more overrides per layer.conf if it supports multiple machines, the warning is gone, but seems like sstate checksums are different again, because during test I changed only this and another gcc rebuild is in runqueue now :/.
Ouch. If you can figure out what changed we can try and fix that. FWIW, I also merged the signature generation data writing at stamp creation time (with fixes).
Cheers,
Richard