From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from vms173009pub.verizon.net ([206.46.173.9]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Oj0Lc-0007Au-DE for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Wed, 11 Aug 2010 03:43:18 +0200 Received: from gandalf.denix.org ([unknown] [71.251.53.61]) by vms173009.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2-7.02 32bit (built Apr 16 2009)) with ESMTPA id <0L6Y00MLWSRAE5I0@vms173009.mailsrvcs.net> for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Tue, 10 Aug 2010 20:42:51 -0500 (CDT) Received: by gandalf.denix.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 0366D14AF64; Tue, 10 Aug 2010 21:42:45 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 21:42:45 -0400 From: Denys Dmytriyenko In-reply-to: To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org Message-id: <20100811014245.GF7189@denix.org> MIME-version: 1.0 References: <0B51A1E7C61D114DAE6FC10B0FD0ABA5018B5E82@deimsg40.de.net.world> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 206.46.173.9 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: denis@denix.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on discovery X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.2.5 X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:20:07 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on linuxtogo.org) Subject: Re: Why PREFERRED_VERSION setting of .conf overrules local.conf setting ? X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 01:43:18 -0000 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Content-disposition: inline On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 09:14:41AM +0930, Graham Gower wrote: > On 11 August 2010 06:26, Chris Larson wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Koen Kooi wrote: > >> What's the point of setting a preferred version at all if you ma= ke it a > >> weak assignment? > >> The distro nearly always knows better and if you want to use a d= ifferent > >> version, sending a patch to change that version for review isn't= exactly > >> rocket science. > > > > > > How about having decent usability? =A0The user asking for somethi= ng and not > > getting it is completely unintuitive. =A0If the user doesn't know= what they > > want, they won't request a specific version. =A0If they do reques= t it, they > > should get it, anything else is an OE usability issue. >=20 > Precisely. The user shouldn't have to understand the details of > parsing order, weak assignments, etc. in order to write a local.con= f > which works for them. Yeah, and then distro maintainers are blamed for the breakage when us= ers unpin=20 and change specific dependency for a package. It's not just the parsing order problem. It's not clear for users tha= t if they=20 change anything in local.conf, it can break. I.e. you break it - you = fix it. --=20 Denys