[oe] SRCREV defined too late -how to fix?

[Martin Jansa]

On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 10:07:12PM -0500, Mike Westerhof wrote:
> Chris Larson wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 6:50 AM, Mike Westerhof <mike at mwester.net> wrote:
> > 
> >> After a recent commit that rearranged where (and how) SRCREVs are defined,
> >> building results in:
> >>
> >> NOTE: preferred version 2.6.27.8+svnr1 of linux-ixp4xx not available (for
> >> item kernel)
> >> NOTE: preferred version 2.6.27.8+svnr1 of linux-ixp4xx not available (for
> >> item kernel-module-ext2)
> >> NOTE: preferred version 2.6.27.8+svnr1 of linux-ixp4xx not available (for
> >> item kernel-module-jbd)
> >> (etc.)
> >>
> >> Note the bogus "svnr1" on the end -- I think this has happened because
> >> someone changed OE to define SRCREVs in each package.  So now, deep in
> >> recipes/linux/linux-ixp4xx.inc, we find:

Hi, that was me, sorry for inconvenience, but we should be able to
resolve it..

> >> SRCREV = "1089"
> >>
> >> I think that's wrong.
> >>
> >> It *does* (sort of) work -- it actually results in that SRCREV (1089) being
> >> built, despite the messages (above) telling you that it can't find the
> >> PREFERRED_VERSION with SRCREV == 1.
> >>
> >> But what that line does is not really what we (the ixp4xx kernel
> >> maintainers) had in mind.
> >>
> >> The idea is that the SRCREV, along with the kernel version, would be
> >> defined as a preferred version, like this line which is in
> >> machine/include/ixp4xx.inc:
> >>
> >> PREFERRED_VERSION_linux-ixp4xx ?= "2.6.24.7+svnr${SRCREV}"
> >>
> >> Of course, SlugOS overrides that because that distro prefers a more recent
> >> kerrnel:
> >>
> >> PREFERRED_VERSION_linux-ixp4xx = "2.6.27.8+svnr${SRCREV}"

This is exact line from your local.conf? Where did you define that newer
SRCREV for this PV?. I've grepped whole tree for
defined SRCREV_pn-something and changed that (see OPKG_SRCREV also
defined in SlugOS conf).

Have you tried

SRCREV_pn-linux-ixp4xx = "4833"
PREFERRED_VERSION_linux-ixp4xx = "2.6.27.8+svnr${SRCREV_pn-linux-ixp4xx}"

in your local.conf?

> >> That's not really a "recent" kernel, of course -- my local.conf file has a
> >> more recent one that I've not yet committed.  The point is that the way it
> >> *USED* to work, one could use the normal means to set both PREFERRED_VERSION
> >> and SRCREV.  With the recent commit, we can't do that anymore.
> >>
> >> Apparently SRCREV isn't defined soon enough with this new structure, so we
> >> get the messages about svnr1 not being available.  And, of course, one
> >> cannot override the preferred version anymore due to the use of "=" instead
> >> of "=?" for the assignment.  (At the very least, when all the SRCREVs were
> >> moved into the recipes, shouldn't the weak assignments have been preserved?)

Yes you can override it with _pn-something in local.conf (as ie
fso-autorev.conf, shr-autorev.conf), SRCREV_pn-abc = "123" is preferred
over SRCREV = "12" in abc_svn.bb. Doesn't matter if there was weak or
normal assignment in recipe.

The point for not-weak assignement is because some time ago, RP said,
that would be better to define SRCREV = None ie in bitbake.conf to get
better error message than those "svnr1". Using weak SRCREV in recipes
wouldn't be possible.

> >> At any rate, I wish to remove the bogus messages about svnr1, and I want to
> >> restore the behavior that would allow me to provide the SRCREV in my
> >> local.conf.  What is the correct way to do this with the new "world order"
> >> as it relates to SRCREVs?   To what config file do I move that
> >> SRCREV="1089"?  Who would I anger if I just put it back to the way it was?

Please try solution suggested above first.

> >>From what RP was saying on IRC the other day, you can utilize "%" in version
> > preferences for versions that include srcrev, as a marker.  2.6.27.8+svnr%.
> >  I haven't looked at that code, though, so I may be completely out in left
> > field here :)
> 
> NOTE: preferred version 2.6.27.8+svnr% of linux-ixp4xx not available
> (for item kernel)
> NOTE: preferred version 2.6.27.8+svnr% of linux-ixp4xx not available
> (for item kernel-module-ext2)
> NOTE: preferred version 2.6.27.8+svnr% of linux-ixp4xx not available
> (for item kernel-module-jbd)
> 
> :(  Does this %-sign feature perhaps require a new bitbake version?

Yes this needs bitbake master.

Regards,
-- 
uin:136542059                jid:Martin.Jansa at gmail.com
Jansa Martin                 sip:jamasip at voip.wengo.fr 
JaMa