[OE-core] SRC_URI computing order

[Andrea Adami]

On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Eric Bénard <eric at eukrea.com> wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> Le Wed, 30 Oct 2013 15:15:12 +0000,
> Richard Purdie <richard.purdie at linuxfoundation.org> a écrit :
>
>> On Tue, 2013-10-29 at 08:28 +0100, Eric Bénard wrote:
>> > Hi Khem,
>> >
>> > Le Mon, 28 Oct 2013 20:45:21 -0700,
>> > Khem Raj <raj.khem at gmail.com> a écrit :
>> >
>> > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Eric Bénard <eric at eukrea.com> wrote:
>> > > > Hi Richard,
>> > > >
>> > > > 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 ?
>> > >
>> > > what is your OVERRIDES order.
>> > >
>> > "${TARGET_OS}:${TRANSLATED_TARGET_ARCH}:build-${BUILD_OS}:pn-${PN}:${MACHINEOVERRIDES}:${DISTROOVERRIDES}:${CLASSOVERRIDE}:forcevariable"
>> >
>> > so it follows the MACHINEOVERRIDES order (and I tried both append and
>> > prepend to hack MACHINEOVERRIDES without any behaviour change).
>>
>> I think what Khem is asking is what OVERRIDES expands to?
>>
>> You mean patchso* and not patchsoc* above, right? Or should patchsom1 be
>> patchsoc2?
>>
> oops :
> I expect  SRC_URI = "patchgeneric1 ... patchsom1 ... patchproduct1 ..."
> and I get :
> SRC_URI = "patchgeneric1 ... patchproduct1 ... patchsom1 ..."
>
>> Its hard to follow and it might be easier if you could share a
>> simplified test case we could reproduce this with. I don't doubt there
>> is an issue in there but we need a way to reproduce and debug this.
>>
> OK, I'm preparing a simple testcase to reproduce that with oe-core +
> meta-fsl-arm + meta-som + meta-baseboard.
>
> Eric
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core at lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core


I have to report an undesiderate behavior:

the formfactor files in our .bbappend are not considered :/
DEBUG: Searching for machconfig in paths:....
  /oe/oe-core/meta/recipes-bsp/formfactor/formfactor-0.0/
  /oe/oe-core/meta/recipes-bsp/formfactor/formfactor/
  /oe/oe-core/meta/recipes-bsp/formfactor/files/
  /oe/meta-handheld/recipes-bsp/formfactor/files/poodle

so we end up with the empty machconfig of
/oe/oe-core/meta/recipes-bsp/formfactor/files/

Surely this didn't happen when we tested the recipe.

Cheers

Andrea