[OE-core] [PATCH 1/1] opkg 0.1.8: respect to the arch when choose the alternatives

Sat May 26 08:19:53 UTC 2012

On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 04:15:09PM +0800, Robert Yang wrote:
> 
> 
> On 05/26/2012 02:28 PM, Martin Jansa wrote:
> > On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 10:47:31AM +0800, Robert Yang wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 05/25/2012 07:30 PM, Martin Jansa wrote:
> >>> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 01:19:55PM +0200, Koen Kooi wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Op 25 mei 2012, om 12:02 heeft Robert Yang het volgende geschreven:
> >>>>
> >>>>> There is a bug if we:
> >>>>> 1) bitbake core-image-sato-sdk MACHINE=qemux86
> >>>>> 2) bitbake core-image-sato with MACHINE=crownbay
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Then several pkgs in deploy/ipk/i586 would be installed to crownbay's
> >>>>> image even if there is one in deploy/ipk/core2 and we have set the
> >>>>> core2's priority higher than i586, when the version in deploy/ipk/i586 is
> >>>>> higher. This doesn't work for us, for example, what the crownbay need is
> >>>>> xserver-xorg-1.9.3, but it installs xserver-xorg-1.11.2.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This is caused by opkg's selecting mechanism, if there are more than one
> >>>>> candidates which have the same pkg name in the candidate list, for
> >>>>> example, the same pkg with different versions, then it will use the last
> >>>>> one which is the highest version in the list, this doesn't work for us,
> >>>>> it should respect to the arch priorities in such a case.
> >>>>
> >>>> This is a serious break with the current opkg behaviour and I don't think it's an improvement. Needing different versions for non machine specific packages indicates a more serious bug elsewhere.
> >>>
> >>> It's not the same use-case as those 2 above, but what I don't like on
> >>
> >> Hi Martin,
> >>
> >> They are the same cases:-), I think that this patch has also fixed your problem,
> >
> > No, at least not completely the same.
> >
> > I would prefer to upgrade foo-1.0-r1_armv4t temporary until
> 
> I think it can upgrade foo-1.0-r1_armv4t temporarily, if ipk/armv7a is removed
> from the repository, then it would not appear in the opkg.conf, and the armv7a
> should be the lowest priority and an unknown arch, and foo-1.0-r1_armv4t will
> win, and it would be installed.
> 
> I simulated your environment:(with core2 and i586, core2 has a higher version)
> 
> 1) The foo-1.0_r1.core2 installed
> 
> 2) Remove the core2 related lines from core-image-sato-1.0-r0/opkg.conf and 
> core-image-sato-1.0-r0/rootfs/etc/opkg/arch.conf
> 
> 3) opkg update && opkg upgrade (foo-1.0_r1.i586 upgraded)
> 
> 4) Add the core2 related lines back to core-image-sato-1.0-r0/opkg.conf and 
> core-image-sato-1.0-r0/rootfs/etc/opkg/arch.conf
> 
> 5) opkg update && opkg upgrade (foo-1.0_r1.core2 upgraded)

Heh, yes of course you can upgrade it with manual aproach on target, but
try to explain it to end users who don't care about OE/opkg and they
just assume that "opkg update && opkg upgrade" does right job and
upgrades their image to newer consistent set of packages.

Cheers,

> 
> // Robert
> 
> > foo-1.0-r1_armv7a gets available in feed and that won't happen with your
> > patch AFAIK.
> >
> > with your patch:
> > If you have bar-1.0 which has to be MACHINE_ARCH and in 2.0 bar
> > developers find way to detect and use all machine capabilities in
> > runtime, recipe maintainer will switch to TUNE_ARCH, then
> > foo-1.0_nokia900.ipk won't be ever upgraded to foo-2.0_armv7a.ipk
> > and that's bad.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> >> the foo-1.0_armv7a will be kept now.
> >>
> >> // Robert
> >>
> >>> current opkg behaviour is that it doesn't "reinstall" the package with
> >>> the same version when it gets available in arch with higher priority.
> >>>
> >>> e.g. I have armv7a device which has feed urls for armv4t and armv7a
> >>> (armv7a of course with higher priority).
> >>>
> >>> foo-1.0 in both feeds armv4t armv7a
> >>>
> >>> opkg update&&   opkg install foo ->   foo-1.0_armv7a
> >>>
> >>> distro builder publish foo-1.0-r1 sofar only in armv4t feed
> >>>
> >>> opkg update&&   opkg upgrade ->   foo-1.0_armv7a is upgraded to foo-1.0-r1_armv4t)
> >>>
> >>> distro builder publish foo-1.0-r1 also to armv7a feed
> >>>
> >>> opkg update&&   opkg upgrade ->   nothing, but "upgrading" to foo-1.0-r1_armv7a) would be better
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On my distro builder I'm trying to prevent this scenario by rsyncing
> >>> feeds only after build for *all* supported machines is completed, but
> >>> that's still not really atomic operation. (And later I've also started
> >>> to filter feeds which gets available on target image).
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Openembedded-core mailing list
> >>> Openembedded-core at lists.openembedded.org
> >>> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
> >

-- 
Martin 'JaMa' Jansa     jabber: Martin.Jansa at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/attachments/20120526/7018142b/attachment-0002.sig>