[OE-core] MIPS vs MIPS32 tunings -- summary and questions

[Koen Kooi]

Op 18 apr. 2012, om 17:46 heeft Martin Jansa het volgende geschreven:

> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 10:21:38AM -0500, Mark Hatle wrote:
>> On 4/18/12 9:37 AM, Andreas Oberritter wrote:
>>> On 18.04.2012 14:45, Richard Purdie wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 14:08 +0200, Andreas Oberritter wrote:
>>>>> On 18.04.2012 14:00, Richard Purdie wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 13:54 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote:
>>>>>>> I had a lot of those (e.g. because armv7a-vfp-neon was including 20
>>>>>>> arm*feed.conf variants in /etc/opkg most of them empty - without
>>>>>>> Packages.gz).
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> So I've added "filter" to distro-feed-configs
>>>>>>> http://git.shr-project.org/git/?p=meta-smartphone.git;a=commit;h=236aa553bb0f82f741c6edb793e96f421f24f4fa
>>>>>>> to add only feeds I'm generating (and I also don't want armv5* packages
>>>>>>> installed on armv7a-vfp-neon target unless user explicitly adds armv5*
>>>>>>> feed).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> This is the better solution. I think we need to get a better default
>>>>>> feed-config generation mechanism into the core. Distros may still need
>>>>>> to tweak it but it would be good to share some of the best practises...
>>>>> 
>>>>> Did you look at the patch? Which default setting of
>>>>> SUPPORTED_EXTRA_ARCHS do you suggest?
>>>> 
>>>> I did. I didn't say the above patch was a perfect solution.
>>>> 
>>>>>  Do you think it's feasible to add
>>>>> every single downloadable arch to this variable? If a user of my distro
>>>>> decides to build it for some arm or x86 cpu, should he need to know
>>>>> which archs to add at this place?
>>>> 
>>>> This is a place where the build system meets and interfaces with the
>>>> distro. No one policy in the build system is going to fit every distro's
>>>> needs, not should we ever aim to so.
>>> 
>>> At least we should have defaults that actually work for someone. Now we
>>> don't and considering that distro-feed-configs.bb is the only place
>>> where PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS is actually used, this would be very easy to
>>> accomplish. Especially because it worked well by default before Mark
>>> broke it.
>> 
>> PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS is also used by Zypper, RPM configuration and other places. 
>>  In those cases it is a full list of all available (and compatible) package 
>> architecture types.
>> 
>> Coming from the RPM world, it seems very odd to me that a set of "extra_archs" 
>> can not list well, extra compatible archs without causing an error.  I have no 
>> idea how to reconcile this behavior, without making a package manager 
>> distro-feed specific solution.  (For RPM we absolutely want the existing behavior.)
> 
> The problem Andreas is seeing is not fatal AFAIK.. just couple (or a
> lot) of 404 (Packages files not available) while doing opkg update is
> not nice for end user. 
> 
> Downloading many existing Packages files without any Package in it
> is also suboptimal, but maybe good start.. so we can teach
> meta/classes/package_ipk.bbclass:package_update_index_ipk() to create
> Packages files not only for existing
> ipkgarchs="${ALL_MULTILIB_PACKAGE_ARCHS} ${SDK_PACKAGE_ARCHS}"
> but for all (replace "if [ -e $pkgdir/ ]; then" with something like 
> "if [ ! -e $pkgdir/ ]; then mkdir -p $pkgdir; fi")

That implies you're exposing feeds straight from OE, which is a bad, bad idea.