[OE-core] [PATCH 1/2] do_rootfs: Added PACKAGE_FEED_URIS functionality

[David Nyström]

On 2014-02-27 23:34, Paul Eggleton wrote:
> On Thursday 27 February 2014 21:20:37 David Nyström wrote:
>> Adding a common interface to add predefined package manager
>> channels to prebuilt rootfs:es.
>>
>> Adding PACKAGE_FEED_URIS = "http://myre.po/repo/, will
>> assume repo directories named (rpm,ipk,deb) as subdirectories
>> and statically add them to the rootfs, using the same PKG_ARCHs
>> as the build which produced the images.
>>
>> Tested with RPM, IPK and DEB.
>
> Looks good. The only thing that looks like it might be missing here is there
> appears to be no way to name the package repo entries individually, though I'm
> not sure what syntax we would use to allow that.
>
> Thoughts?

Well, there is the old moblin syntax for IPK_FEED_URIS:

For qemux86-64
--
IPK_FEED_URIS = " \
 
all##http://downloads.yoctoproject.org/releases/yocto/yocto-1.5/ipk/all \
 
x86_64##http://downloads.yoctoproject.org/releases/yocto/yocto-1.5/ipk/x86_64 
\
 
core2-64##http://downloads.yoctoproject.org/releases/yocto/yocto-1.5/ipk/core2-64 
\
 
qemux86_64##http://downloads.yoctoproject.org/releases/yocto/yocto-1.5/ipk/qemux86_64 
\
--
I don't particularly agree with above format.
When using the deploy directory as input it makes the feed_syntax 
MACHINE dependent, and difficult to keep in sync for new machines and 
upstream changes.

IMHO, bitbake should support the same input format as it generates as 
output format for the repos.
If someone want to share code for the post-processing of outputted 
bitbake repos(deb,ipk,rpm), I'll happily reconsider.

Having multiple feed formats is confusing though, we should fix this so 
we have the same format everywhere.

What could be done is to add names to the top level repos directory,
i.e. PACKAGE_FEED_URIS ="stable##http://myre.op/deploy/ \
			"experimental#http://not_trusted.to/ext_deploy/"

But I'm not sure what this will accomplish. The real channel names would 
become experimental-all, stable-all instead of current hardcoded 
url0-all, url1-all et.c.
Is this what you were suggesting ?

With smart and apt, you can prioritize channels, which the 
implementation will do, in descending order, keeping the pkg_arch 
inter-priorities intact.
However, for opkg, you prioritize archs rather than channels afaik.


> Cheers,
> Paul
>