[oe] Splitting meta-oe?

Wed Feb 21 13:38:24 UTC 2018

On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 8:34 AM, Bruce Ashfield
<bruce.ashfield at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 3:49 AM, Martin Jansa <martin.jansa at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I need an updated python-<foo> package for an unrelated package
>>
>> And how far will you go?
>>
>
> pretty far. I work with a lot of deep stacks that have a lot of specific
> dependencies as well as compatibility issues.
>
>> If you want just newer python-<foo> and nothing else, will you take other
>> changes to other python-* recipes from meta-python layer? There is a lot of
>> recipes there, if you're so picky about updates, then you shouldn't update
>> whole oe-core as well.
>
> I actually don't always, but generally speaking, I haven't had many
> problems with package updates from oe-core. I end up with breakage
> due to core build system changes, and that impacts oe-core and any
> layer either.

oh, and I'd add that this point is somewhat contrived (few package
breakages), since that is really just a fallout of the oe-core packages
being fairly ... core .. (and boring), so really there aren't any hard or
strange dependencies that cause issues and that's a fall out of the
content, not the workflow or model (or git repo split, or not!).

Cheers,

Bruce

>
> But as I pointed out, I'm not looking to have my problem 'solved', I'm
> just pointing out that it is a valid concern .. whether or not others
> agree.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bruce
>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 1:51 AM, Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfield at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 1:52 PM, Khem Raj <raj.khem at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > On 2/20/18 9:13 AM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>>> >> On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 11:50 AM, akuster808 <akuster808 at gmail.com>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On 02/20/2018 02:45 AM, Burton, Ross wrote:
>>> >>>> Hi,
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Is now a good time to talk about splitting up meta-oe?  Some layers
>>> >>>> are
>>> >>>> actively developed and maintained (one example: meta-python), others
>>> >>>> are
>>> >>>> basically bitrotting and only get touched when something else causes
>>> >>>> them
>>> >>>> to break world builds (one example: meta-gnome).  I've long felt that
>>> >>>> meta-oe should be split up and the high quality layers managed in
>>> >>>> their own
>>> >>>> repositories so patches to them don't get held up by breakage in
>>> >>>> other
>>> >>>> sub-layers.
>>> >>> You make it sound like meta-oe is not a high quality layer.  I could
>>> >>> make the same claim about oe-core master.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I don't see the connection in patches being held up due to breakage in
>>> >>> other sub layers. This only happens if the dependency fail to build.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> You lose control over the quality in current layers that reside in
>>> >>> meta-openbedded just like you have no control over all the other
>>> >>> layers
>>> >>> residing in the community. It makes maintaining stable versions very
>>> >>> difficult. Well, unless The Yocto Project takes over them.. I guess
>>> >>> that
>>> >>> would work then.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Another advantage of splitting out the high quality layers is that
>>> >>>> we'd
>>> >>>> like to look at running more community layers through the Yocto
>>> >>>> autobuilder, and granular layers make that easier to manage.
>>> >>>  I thought not including layers in bblayers.conf was easy enough.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Comments?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> What problem do you thing you are trying to solve here?
>>> >>
>>> >> My unrelated issues are that I can't update one layer, without getting
>>> >> all of the updates.
>>> >> .. but that is both a good thing (i.e. they are all tested together,
>>> >> so you know that the
>>> >> single SRCREV update is good for all layers), and a bad thing (when
>>> >> you just want a
>>> >> new python recipe update from meta-python, but don't want other
>>> >> changes).
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > if you dont include the layers in your BBLAYERS and they become
>>> > effectively non existent, unless you are on metered internet connection,
>>> > where downloading unused stuff would save you bandwidth, it should be
>>> > ok.  No ?
>>>
>>> Its not that.
>>>
>>> I *am* building the different layers, but say I have a stable set of
>>> packages
>>> and working images .. but for whatever reason, I need an updated
>>> python-<foo>
>>> package for an unrelated package, or some other layer that needs a newer
>>> version, etc.
>>>
>>> How do I get that, without taking updates to all the layers ? .. and
>>> layers that
>>> I really didn't want to update. I have to do some sort of combo-layer,
>>> carry
>>> my own copy of the recipe, etc.
>>>
>>> So there are definitely ways to do it, I'm just pointing out that I
>>> end up taking
>>> some build failures/issues from time to time on packages I didn't really
>>> need to update.
>>>
>>> The flip side of that argument is that all of the layers and sub layers
>>> have
>>> gone through some sort of global build, and hence I know that they all
>>> have
>>> worked together for someone. If I can update pieces individually, I break
>>> that .. and I own the broken bits after that .. which again, goes to
>>> my point that
>>> fixing one workflow/issue can break another :D
>>>
>>> Bruce
>>>
>>> >
>>> >> It is very likely that splitting the layer would help one issue, but
>>> >> make the other worse.
>>> >>
>>> >> So no solution from me, just an observation about potential issue.
>>> >>
>>> >> Cheers,
>>> >>
>>> >> Bruce
>>> >>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> - armin
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Ross
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> --
>>> >>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>> Openembedded-devel mailing list
>>> >>> Openembedded-devel at lists.openembedded.org
>>> >>> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> "Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await
>>> thee at its end"
>>> --
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Openembedded-devel mailing list
>>> Openembedded-devel at lists.openembedded.org
>>> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> "Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await
> thee at its end"

-- 
"Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await
thee at its end"