[OE-core] adding meta-intel layers breaks parsing, was Re: Updating u-boot for oe-core or meta-yocto

[Koen Kooi]

Op 25 mei 2011, om 16:28 heeft Tom Zanussi het volgende geschreven:

> On Tue, 2011-05-24 at 13:07 -0500, Tom Zanussi wrote:
>> On Tue, 2011-05-24 at 10:51 -0700, Koen Kooi wrote:
>>> Op 24 mei 2011, om 19:23 heeft Khem Raj het volgende geschreven:
>>> 
>>>> On (24/05/11 09:36), Darren Hart wrote:
>>>>> I've started pulling in the 15 or so patches to u-boot from meta-ti. In
>>>> 
>>>> why ? its a BSP recipe and bsp layer is best place for it IMO unless you
>>>> want to have some of those machines in a different layer.
>>>> 
>>>>> doing so I've come across some questions I'd like you thoughts on.
>>>>> Specifically, where to put these changes. Some points of context:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 1) oe-core is intended to support emulated machines only
>>>>> 2) oe-core has a "virgin" u-boot recipe (no patches)
>>>>> 3) meta-yocto does not have a u-boot recipe (no bbappend either)
>>>>> 4) meta-ti has it's own u-boot recipe with per-machine patches
>>>>> 
>>>>> A stated goal was to bring the Yocto Project's u-boot support for the
>>>>> Beagleboard in line with that in meta-ti. There are several ways I can
>>>>> go about this.
>>>>> 
>>>>> a) create a bbappend in meta-yocto and duplicate the meta-ti
>>>>>  modifications in bbappend form.
>>>>> b) Modify the oe-core recipe directly
>>>>> 
>>>>> While a) is the most direct approach to accomplish our goal, it requires
>>>>> continual maintenance and duplicates effort. I don't care for this
>>>>> approach. b) has the potential to consolidate all beagleboard u-boot
>>>>> recipe work into a single place. It could simplify the meta-ti and
>>>>> eliminate the need for a bbappend in the meta-yocto layer.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The question of whether bootloaders have a place in oe-core should
>>>>> probably be addressed. While they aren't needed for the emulated
>>>>> machines, they are a highly reusable component for real systems, and
>>>>> that seems justify keeping them in oe-core. Does anyone disagree with
>>>>> this assessment?
>>>>> 
>>>>> I propose pulling the necessary changes to u-boot from meta-ti into
>>>>> oe-core. My initial scan suggested the beagleboard patches are mostly
>>>>> contained to beagle specific source files. I would prefer to pull in all
>>>>> the patches for all machines into the SRC_URI, rather than divide them
>>>>> up by machine. This reduces complexity considerably. For the couple of
>>>>> patches that collide, we would keep those as machine specific.
>>>>> 
>>>>> As a final part of the work, I would include my beagleboard patch status
>>>>> audit in the included patches and continue to work on reducing the
>>>>> patches in the recipe for the beagleboard.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>> 
>>>> Well I am in similar boat where I wanted to build atom-pc for angstrom
>>>> but I was thinking using meta-intel layer instead of pulling stuff out
>>>> and stuffing it elsewhere and certainly not oe-core
>>> 
>>> Speaking of meta-intel layers, when I add them to bblayer.conf I get:
>>> 
>>> ERROR: Error parsing /OE/tentacle/sources/openembedded-core/meta/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto-stable_git.bb: Failure expanding variable FILESEXTRAPATHS, expression was ${FILESEXTRAPATHS}:/OE/tentacle/sources/meta-intel/meta-n450/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto-stable which triggered exception Exception: variable FILESEXTRAPATHS references itself!
>>> 
>>> Same for jasperforest, emenlow, fishriver and crownbay. The only intel layer I can add without breaking the parsing step is sugarbay :(
>>> 
>> 
>> Must be something recent - I've built several of those successfully over
>> the past few days, will take a look though...
>> 
> 
> I just finished building all of the above successfully using the latest
> (as of yesterday) poky/master and meta-intel/master.
> 
> Not sure why you're seeing parsing errors, none here...

Did you add all the layers to bblayers.conf? Having one isn't a problem, but adding them all seems to trigger the bug.