[OE-core] SRC_URI computing order

[Eric Bénard]

Le Fri, 01 Nov 2013 18:16:18 +0000,
Richard Purdie <richard.purdie at linuxfoundation.org> a écrit :

> On Fri, 2013-11-01 at 16:36 +0100, Eric Bénard wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Le Mon, 28 Oct 2013 15:10:04 +0100,
> > Eric Bénard <eric at eukrea.com> a écrit :
> > > I saw your patch fixing FILESPATH's and Kergoth's one fixing
> > > PACKAGECONFIG processing order and I think I'm also facing an order
> > > problem when SRC_URI is computed.
> > > 
> > > So when building SRC_URI when two layers have bbappend which apply
> > > patches : the SRC_URI seems to be built using an order I fail to
> > > understand somewhere instead of priority or the overrides' order.
> > > 
> > > The use case is a System on Module and its custom motherboard :
> > > - meta-fsl-arm :
> > > * linux-imx_xyz.bb :
> > > SRC_URI = "patchgeneric1 ..."
> > > 
> > > - meta-som-support :
> > > * conf/machine/mysom.conf
> > > 
> > > * linux-imx_xyz.bbappend :
> > > SRC_URI_append_mysom = "patchsom1 patchsom2 ..."
> > > 
> > > - meta-custommotherboard (SOM + Cunstom Motherboard) :
> > > * conf/machine/myproduct.conf
> > > MACHINEOVERRIDES_prepend = "mysom:"
> > > include conf/machine/mysom.conf
> > > 
> > > * linux-imx_xyz.bbappend :
> > > SRC_URI_append_myproduct = "patchproduct1 patchproduct2 ..."
> > > 
> > > in the end I get :
> > > SRC_URI = "patchgeneric1 ... patchsoc1 ... patchproduct1 ...
> > > patchsom1 ..."
> > > 
> > > and of course as patchproduct* are supposed to apply on top of
> > > patchsoc* the patch fail to apply.
> > > 
> > > I didn't found a way to build SRC_URI in the order I would like (I
> > > tested : changing MACHINEOVERRIDES 's order, changing layers' priority,
> > > changing machine's name to see if that was an alphabetical order ...).
> > > 
> > > In the end the only thing which worked was to add an (empty by default)
> > > variable in som's SRC_URI and filling this variables from the
> > > custommotherboard's bbappend.
> > > 
> > > Is the behaviour I'm seeing expected or is there something wrong in my
> > > setup ?
> > > 
> > do you need more details concerning this problem ?
> 
> I sent a reply asking for more info. I think there is a typo above which
> isn't helping...
> 
sorry I missed your mail.

Eric