[OE-core] [PATCH 2/2] kernel: user defined KERNEL_VERSION_PKG_NAME

Thu Jun 29 13:06:50 UTC 2017

On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 5:10 AM, Razvan Heghedus <razvan.heghedus at ni.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On 06/28/2017 04:29 AM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 5:15 AM, Razvan Heghedus <razvan.heghedus at ni.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 06/26/2017 06:52 PM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 8:00 AM, Heghedus Razvan <razvan.heghedus at ni.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Add possibility to set KERNEL_VERSION_PKG_NAME to a user
>>> defined value.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Heghedus Razvan <razvan.heghedus at ni.com>
>>> ---
>>>  meta/classes/kernel.bbclass | 8 ++++++--
>>>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass b/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass
>>> index 605c101e62..02728d5a86 100644
>>> --- a/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass
>>> +++ b/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass
>>> @@ -28,12 +28,16 @@ INITRAMFS_IMAGE_BUNDLE ?= ""
>>>  # LINUX_VERSION which is a constant.
>>>  KERNEL_VERSION_NAME = "${@d.getVar('KERNEL_VERSION') or "
>>> <$%7B at d.getVar%28%27KERNEL_VERSION%27%29or>"}"
>>>  KERNEL_VERSION_NAME[vardepvalue] = "${LINUX_VERSION}"
>>> -KERNEL_VERSION_PKG_NAME = "${@legitimize_package_name(d.
>>> getVar('KERNEL_VERSION'))}"
>>> -KERNEL_VERSION_PKG_NAME[vardepvalue] = "${LINUX_VERSION}"
>>>
>>>  python __anonymous () {
>>>      import re
>>>
>>> +    if d.getVar('USER_KERNEL_VERSION_PKG') is None :
>>> +        d.setVar('KERNEL_VERSION_PKG_NAME',
>>> "${@legitimize_package_name(d.getVar('KERNEL_VERSION'))}")
>>> +        d.setVar('KERNEL_VERSION_PKG_NAME[vardepvalue]',
>>> "${LINUX_VERSION}")
>>> +    else:
>>> +        d.setVar('KERNEL_VERSION_PKG_NAME',
>>> "${@legitimize_package_name(d.getVar('USER_KERNEL_VERSION_PKG'))}")
>>>
>>
>> This is introducing yet another variable that tweaks the already complex
>> setting of
>> the kernel version. Not to mention this code is already touchy with
>> respect to
>> parse time and rebuilding of the kernel.
>>
>> My concern is that if this is set, we are completely disassociated with
>> the source
>> code of the kernel.
>>
>> Where did you think this would be set ? local.conf ? distro config ?
>> somewhere else ?
>>
>> If we had a way to simply override KERNEL_VERSION, we wouldn't need any
>> extra
>> variables.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>>
>>> +
>>>      # Merge KERNEL_IMAGETYPE and KERNEL_ALT_IMAGETYPE into
>>> KERNEL_IMAGETYPES
>>>      type = d.getVar('KERNEL_IMAGETYPE') or ""
>>>      alttype = d.getVar('KERNEL_ALT_IMAGETYPE') or ""
>>> --
>>> 2.13.1
>>>
>>> --
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Openembedded-core mailing list
>>> Openembedded-core at lists.openembedded.org
>>> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> "Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await thee
>> at its end"
>>
>> I have setting the variable in the kernel recipe. I need a way to
>> override the KERNEL_VERSION because I want the kernel packages name to
>> contain only a part of the version or nothing at all.
>> I need this for the the kernel upgrade stuff, because if the package name
>> is something like: kernel-4.9.8-{static_string} then I couldn't upgrade to
>> a version like: kernel-4.9.10-{static_string}, because they are two
>> different packages. I wanted a simple way to be able to have the package
>> name : kernel-4.9-{static_string}, then I could do the upgrade for the new
>> minor updates of the kernel.
>>
>
> I could have sworn this (upgrading) was already possible via the version
> string we
> are currently using.  i.e. the PV is already picked up from the kernel
> source, and
> that should be doing the job.
>
> i.e. when I unpack my kernel-image-bzimage-4.10.15-y
> octo-standard_4.10.15+git0+4d929fac34_d2c1ed3c0c-r0_qemux86_64.ipk
> package, I see that it has:
>
>  Version: 4.10.15+git0+4d929fac34_d2c1ed3c0c-r0
>  but obviously has the general provides: Provides: kernel-image-bzimage
>
> So that should be upgradable based on the version ... sure they have
> different names, but the provides
> and versions take care of things.
>
> The versioning, ability to install multiple kernels, upgrades, etc, have
> really churned
> these variables making them a mess to read.
>
> I'm probably misunderstanding your use case and error, can you elaborate
> for me
> and/or provide a log ? I'm more of a kernel guy than a package format guy
> .. so
> I'm probably missing something obvious.
>
> Bruce
>
>
>
> If I build a genericx86_64 core-image_sato without this patch, only with
> the other patch which add the versions(only the parts that are in round
> parenthesis) I have the following packages:
>
> Package: kernel-4.10.9-yocto-standard
> Version: 4.10.9+git0+ad2e885015_fe0fb8da3d-r0
> Depends: kernel-image-4.10.9-yocto-standard (=
> 4.10.9+git0+ad2e885015_fe0fb8da3d-r0)
> Provides: kernel-4.10.9-yocto-standard, kernel-base
>
> Package: kernel-image-4.10.9-yocto-standard
> Version: 4.10.9+git0+ad2e885015_fe0fb8da3d-r0
> Depends: kernel-image-bzimage-4.10.9-yocto-standard (=
> 4.10.9+git0+ad2e885015_fe0fb8da3d-r0)
> Provides: kernel-image
>
> Package: kernel-module-6lowpan-4.10.9-yocto-standard
> Version: 4.10.9+git0+ad2e885015_fe0fb8da3d-r0
> Depends: kernel-4.10.9-yocto-standard (= 4.10.9+git0+ad2e885015_fe0fb8d
> a3d-r0)
> Provides: kernel-module-6lowpan
>
> So the problem are the Depends field. We have the 4.10.9 part in the
> dependents that is messing with the upgrade. If we want to do only some
> minor update that doesn't change this value than everything is ok. It
> works. But if we have a new value e.g. 4.10.10 than we couldn't do the
> upgrade.
> So that's why I came up with this patch to be able to modify the Depends
> value to something like: kernel-image-4.10-yocto-standard, or even
> kernel-image.
>

That's the point I'm trying to make.

Patch 1/2 adds the depends, but there's no way to disable it. Without
defining the variable
that you have in patch 2/2, you can't upgrade the kernel packages .. which
makes it not only
a new variable, but a new requirement when working with the kernel
recipes/packages.

People have been upgrading the kernel before either of these patches (I
can't say that
I do very often .. but I know that users of the commercially supported
distros do) .. unless
it has been inadvertently broken, or there are more patches floating around
that I've not
seen.

what is the upgrade behaviour with neither of these patches applied ? ..
that's the behaviour that
I'm most concerned about maintaining.

Also, if we were to introduce something like this, the series needs to have
documentation
updates along with it .. or we'll surely forget to document it and catch
people by surprise :(

Bruce

>
>> This was the simple and cleanest way I could think of to achieve the my
>> scenario. But if there is a better idea for this, let me know.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Razvan
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> "Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await thee
> at its end"
>
>
> --
>
> Razvan
>
>

-- 
"Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await thee
at its end"
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/attachments/20170629/2208be58/attachment-0002.html>