[oe] Question about OVERRIDES precedence

[Maupin, Chase]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: openembedded-devel-bounces at lists.openembedded.org
> [mailto:openembedded-devel-bounces at lists.openembedded.org] On Behalf Of
> Chris Larson
> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 4:39 PM
> To: openembedded-devel at lists.openembedded.org
> Subject: Re: [oe] Question about OVERRIDES precedence
> 
> On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Maupin, Chase <chase.maupin at ti.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > That was my thought as well but I can consistently cause this issue.  I
> > have tested a quick change that seems to fix the issue by reversing the
> list
> > before it is used in the for loop.  My change was:
> 
> 
> From discussion on IRC, we think we should just reverse the definition of
> OVERRIDES in OE, this avoids compatibility issues associated with changing
> the implementation.

Chris,

So are you saying that we are just going to change the order of how OVERRIDES is appended to in OE like Denys was suggesting?  That would still lead to issues like local not being the highest priority unless we would also change bitbake.conf to define OVERRIDES as "${TARGET_ARCH}:${TARGET_OS}:${MACHINE}:local".  That way we could prepend OVERRIDES in OE and still have local be the last one evaluated.

Or are you saying that we should build the whole OVERRIDES list and then reverse it in the OE configuration files?

If that is the case I tried adding a line like:

REVERSE_OVERRIDES=${@d.setVar("OVERRIDES", ':'.join(bb.data.getVar('OVERRIDES', d, 1).split(':')[::-1]))}

to the end of my local.conf file.  When I do a bitbake -e to dump my environment I see that OVERRIDES is now defined to:

OVERRIDES="thumb-interwork:libc-glibc:omap3:armv7a:pn-task-arago-toolchain-tisdk-multimedia-host:fail-fast:build-linux:arm:linux-gnueabi:angstrom:am37x-evm:local"

But while that order looks right it seems like maybe that is being interpreted to late because my variables that use overrides are not picking up the right values.  i.e. my MACHINE override is not taking precedence over my SOC_FAMILY override.

Any ideas why this does not work?


> --
> Christopher Larson
> clarson at kergoth dot com
> Founder - BitBake, OpenEmbedded, OpenZaurus
> Maintainer - Tslib
> Senior Software Engineer, Mentor Graphics
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel at lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel