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

[Joshua Lock]

On 06/02/12 11:50, Koen Kooi wrote:
> 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 :)

Agreed. I'm keen to have the layers interoperate more nicely so would 
welcome the discussion of this at ELC.

I'll be sure to share with the list too!

Cheers,
Joshua
-- 
Joshua Lock
         Yocto Project "Johannes factotum"
         Intel Open Source Technology Centre