[OE-core] [PATCH 1/1] netbase: make netbase recipe MACHINE specific for all targets

[Koen Kooi]

Op 6 feb. 2012, om 20:37 heeft Joshua Lock het volgende geschreven:

> On 06/02/12 10:58, Koen Kooi wrote:
>> Op 6 feb. 2012 om 19:33 heeft Joshua Lock<josh at linux.intel.com>  het volgende geschreven:
>>> On 04/02/12 08:07, Koen Kooi wrote:
>>>> Op 3 feb. 2012, om 18:15 heeft Darren Hart het volgende geschreven:
>>>>> On 02/02/2012 10:59 AM, Joshua Lock wrote:
>>>>>> On 02/02/12 10:54, Koen Kooi wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Op 2 feb. 2012, om 19:51 heeft Joshua Lock het volgende
>>>>>>> geschreven:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Several BSP's are appending netbase to add MACHINE specific
>>>>>>>> networking functionality. Rather than BSP creators having to
>>>>>>>> mark netbase MACHINE specific just default to PACKAGE_ARCH =
>>>>>>>> "${MACHINE_ARCH}" in netbase.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> This shouldn't be a huge hit as netbase just copies files
>>>>>>>> around.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> In the past OE would mark things machine specific if something in
>>>>>>> SRC_URI was fetched using overrides. So it this patches fixed
>>>>>>> netbase the 'old' mechanism is broken :(
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> This patch doesn't fix netbase, I just thought it would be simpler to
>>>>>> make this change than ensure all BSP's use appropriate OVERRIDEs in
>>>>>> their netbase bbappends - several I've seen don't.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Is there a consensus on whether or not this can go in? I need either
>>>>> this or the BSP layer fix for a new BSP. It seems to me that netbase is
>>>>> overridden enough for machine specific things (like the interface file)
>>>>> that Joshua's approach is the better fix.
>>>> 
>>>> It all depends on how much crap in BSPs you want to fix up in OE-core. Where are you going to draw the line?
>>> 
>>> I understand you don't like this change but I don't really understand why?
>>> 
>>> My intention with the patch is to make it easier for folks to produce BSP's which don't introduce bugs into other builds for the same architecture.
>> 
>> You're not making it easier, you're just fixing up bugs in the BSP in oe-core. So where do you draw 
> the line on that?
> 
> Thanks for persisting.
> 
> As I understand your argument: BSP developers still need to understand the intricacies involved as soon as they make a similar change to a non-netbase recipe?
> 
> I can't and won't disagree with that.
> 
> I could argue that, in the specific case of netbase, it's reasonable to expect the resultant package file to be MACHINE specific. For example, I wouldn't expect to take the network configuration from my laptop, copy it to my workstation and for it to all work.

On the subject of networking, there's some overlap between the network management on oe-core/meta-oe. The current options:

* ifupdown (/etc/network/interfaces)
* connman (ignores /etc/network/interfaces)
* network manager (has a plugin to stay away from interfaces listed in /etc/network/interfaces)

I think we should have a look at how those 3 intergrate into the images we build. There is no cabal, but some face time at ELC would likely help :)

regards,

Koen