* why "PREFERRED_PROVIDER_udev" and not "PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/udev"?
@ 2021-08-30 7:52 Robert P. J. Day
2021-08-30 16:09 ` [OE-core] " Khem Raj
2021-08-31 9:23 ` Richard Purdie
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Robert P. J. Day @ 2021-08-30 7:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: OE Core mailing list
i was going to extend section 3.3.17, "Using Virtual Providers",
with an intro example using "udev" until i realized that that example
doesn't use the "virtual/" notation. so ... why not? is there some
distinction between other components that use the "virtual/" prefix,
but a reason that one does not specify:
PROVIDES = "virtual/udev"
rather than just:
PROVIDES = "udev"
and then use the corresponding PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/udev
notation?
rday
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [OE-core] why "PREFERRED_PROVIDER_udev" and not "PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/udev"?
2021-08-30 7:52 why "PREFERRED_PROVIDER_udev" and not "PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/udev"? Robert P. J. Day
@ 2021-08-30 16:09 ` Khem Raj
2021-08-31 8:27 ` Robert P. J. Day
2021-08-31 9:23 ` Richard Purdie
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Khem Raj @ 2021-08-30 16:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Robert P. J. Day; +Cc: OE Core mailing list
On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 12:52 AM Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@crashcourse.ca> wrote:
>
>
> i was going to extend section 3.3.17, "Using Virtual Providers",
> with an intro example using "udev" until i realized that that example
> doesn't use the "virtual/" notation. so ... why not? is there some
> distinction between other components that use the "virtual/" prefix,
> but a reason that one does not specify:
>
> PROVIDES = "virtual/udev"
>
> rather than just:
>
> PROVIDES = "udev"
>
> and then use the corresponding PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/udev
> notation?
we also have VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_dev_manager which spans across systemd to mdev
so I guess we could but perhaps we already have this functionality
>
> rday
>
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [OE-core] why "PREFERRED_PROVIDER_udev" and not "PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/udev"?
2021-08-30 16:09 ` [OE-core] " Khem Raj
@ 2021-08-31 8:27 ` Robert P. J. Day
2021-08-31 9:24 ` Richard Purdie
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Robert P. J. Day @ 2021-08-31 8:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Khem Raj; +Cc: OE Core mailing list
On Mon, 30 Aug 2021, Khem Raj wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 12:52 AM Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@crashcourse.ca> wrote:
> >
> >
> > i was going to extend section 3.3.17, "Using Virtual Providers",
> > with an intro example using "udev" until i realized that that example
> > doesn't use the "virtual/" notation. so ... why not? is there some
> > distinction between other components that use the "virtual/" prefix,
> > but a reason that one does not specify:
> >
> > PROVIDES = "virtual/udev"
> >
> > rather than just:
> >
> > PROVIDES = "udev"
> >
> > and then use the corresponding PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/udev
> > notation?
>
> we also have VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_dev_manager which spans across systemd to mdev
> so I guess we could but perhaps we already have this functionality
a followup, perhaps silly question -- is there anything special
about the "virtual/" prefix in the sense of being a provider? i mean,
other than being more aesthetically obvious?
rday
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [OE-core] why "PREFERRED_PROVIDER_udev" and not "PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/udev"?
2021-08-31 8:27 ` Robert P. J. Day
@ 2021-08-31 9:24 ` Richard Purdie
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Richard Purdie @ 2021-08-31 9:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Robert P. J. Day, Khem Raj; +Cc: OE Core mailing list
On Tue, 2021-08-31 at 04:27 -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Aug 2021, Khem Raj wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 12:52 AM Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@crashcourse.ca> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > i was going to extend section 3.3.17, "Using Virtual Providers",
> > > with an intro example using "udev" until i realized that that example
> > > doesn't use the "virtual/" notation. so ... why not? is there some
> > > distinction between other components that use the "virtual/" prefix,
> > > but a reason that one does not specify:
> > >
> > > PROVIDES = "virtual/udev"
> > >
> > > rather than just:
> > >
> > > PROVIDES = "udev"
> > >
> > > and then use the corresponding PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/udev
> > > notation?
> >
> > we also have VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_dev_manager which spans across systemd to mdev
> > so I guess we could but perhaps we already have this functionality
>
> a followup, perhaps silly question -- is there anything special
> about the "virtual/" prefix in the sense of being a provider? i mean,
> other than being more aesthetically obvious?
Not really, it just signifies particular groups like the libc example I mention
in another mail.
Cheers,
Richard
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [OE-core] why "PREFERRED_PROVIDER_udev" and not "PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/udev"?
2021-08-30 7:52 why "PREFERRED_PROVIDER_udev" and not "PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/udev"? Robert P. J. Day
2021-08-30 16:09 ` [OE-core] " Khem Raj
@ 2021-08-31 9:23 ` Richard Purdie
1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Richard Purdie @ 2021-08-31 9:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Robert P. J. Day, OE Core mailing list
On Mon, 2021-08-30 at 03:52 -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> i was going to extend section 3.3.17, "Using Virtual Providers",
> with an intro example using "udev" until i realized that that example
> doesn't use the "virtual/" notation. so ... why not? is there some
> distinction between other components that use the "virtual/" prefix,
> but a reason that one does not specify:
>
> PROVIDES = "virtual/udev"
>
> rather than just:
>
> PROVIDES = "udev"
>
> and then use the corresponding PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/udev
> notation?
The "virtual/" namespace is just a way of namespacing some key dependencies
outside of the direct recipe namespace.
virtual/libc is a better example and there are a few toolchain related ones.
There are several different libc implementations and virtual/libc just says you
want one without being specific.
Cheers,
Richard
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <16A0063E8A02B067.22970@lists.openembedded.org>]
* Re: [OE-core] why "PREFERRED_PROVIDER_udev" and not "PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/udev"?
[not found] <16A0063E8A02B067.22970@lists.openembedded.org>
@ 2021-08-30 8:11 ` Robert P. J. Day
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Robert P. J. Day @ 2021-08-30 8:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: OE Core mailing list
On Mon, 30 Aug 2021, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> i was going to extend section 3.3.17, "Using Virtual Providers",
> with an intro example using "udev" until i realized that that
> example doesn't use the "virtual/" notation. so ... why not? is
> there some distinction between other components that use the
> "virtual/" prefix, but a reason that one does not specify:
>
> PROVIDES = "virtual/udev"
>
> rather than just:
>
> PROVIDES = "udev"
>
> and then use the corresponding PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/udev
> notation?
just to make sure folks understand what i'm getting at, the section:
https://docs.yoctoproject.org/dev-manual/common-tasks.html#using-virtual-providers
opens with, "Prior to a build, if you know that several different
recipes provide the same functionality, you can use a virtual provider
(i.e. virtual/*) as a placeholder for the actual provider."
except there are cases where several different recipes provide the
same functionality that *don't* incorporate the "virtual/" notation,
so which ones merit that and which ones don't? (i mentioned "udev"
being provided by both "eudev" and "systemd", for which i wrote an
utterly brilliant explanation that i now realize isn't appropriate for
that section.)
in the simpler cases, you have recipes that have a new name that
can now be used in place of the old, such that "stress-ng" provides
"stress", so you don't have to mess with all your old images and
packagegroups. and in situations like that, the "virtual/" notation
would seem out of place.
OTOH, well, virtual "kernel" and "bootloader" makes perfect sense as
they represent a more abstract idea. so ... thoughts? even though
"udev" does not use the "virtual/" notation, would it still fall under
the category of "virtual provider"? if not, how would one describe it?
rday
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2021-08-31 9:24 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2021-08-30 7:52 why "PREFERRED_PROVIDER_udev" and not "PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/udev"? Robert P. J. Day
2021-08-30 16:09 ` [OE-core] " Khem Raj
2021-08-31 8:27 ` Robert P. J. Day
2021-08-31 9:24 ` Richard Purdie
2021-08-31 9:23 ` Richard Purdie
[not found] <16A0063E8A02B067.22970@lists.openembedded.org>
2021-08-30 8:11 ` Robert P. J. Day
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.