[OE-core] [PATCH] u-boot: Add RPROVIDES bootloader

[Paul Eggleton]

On Mon, 05 Dec 2016 17:45:40 Otavio Salvador wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 5:31 PM, Paul Eggleton
> 
> <paul.eggleton at linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 02 Dec 2016 11:59:52 Fabio Berton wrote:
> >> This change allow to install u-boot in /boot partition using
> >> MACHINE_ESSENTIAL_EXTRA_RDEPENDS variable e.g.:
> >> 
> >> MACHINE_ESSENTIAL_EXTRA_RDEPENDS += "bootloader"
> >> 
> >> This is usefull when system has only one partition and u-boot,
> >> kernel and device tree need to be installed in /boot.
> > 
> > If the intention is that other packages also have "bootloader" in
> > RPROVIDES, I thought that these kinds of "virtual provides" weren't
> > supported well by all of the package managers. (We might get away with it
> > here since they probably will all be in their own separate
> > machine-specific feeds, though).
>
> The point in having the bootloader is because different bootloaders
> may provide the functionality for the board. This is especially keen
> for commercial distributions where a U-Boot fork may include fixes and
> this should be used on top of the BSP default and without many changes
> on the layer.
> 
> As you pointed out, the U-Boot usually has a single provider as it is
> a MACHINE_ARCH package. I think it is a safe addition, isn't it?

If we can guarantee that there will only be one runtime provider of 
"bootloader", then I would assume so, yes.

One question - at OEDEM (based on the minutes, I wasn't there) the 
proliferation of u-boot recipes across BSPs was discussed and there was at 
least a desire to try to move to a single recipe where practically possible. 
Do you have any opinions on that? I bring it up because if there was only 
"u-boot" presumably we wouldn't need the "bootloader" RPROVIDES at all.

Cheers,
Paul

-- 

Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre