* [PATCH 2/2] kernel: user defined KERNEL_VERSION_PKG_NAME
[not found] <20170621104942.5601-1-razvan.heghedus@ni.com>
@ 2017-06-21 10:49 ` Heghedus Razvan
0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Heghedus Razvan @ 2017-06-21 10:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: openembedded-core
Add possibility to set KERNEL_VERSION_PKG_NAME to a user
defined value.
Signed-off-by: Heghedus Razvan <razvan.heghedus@ni.com>
---
meta/classes/kernel.bbclass | 8 ++++++--
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass b/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass
index 605c101e62..02728d5a86 100644
--- a/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass
+++ b/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass
@@ -28,12 +28,16 @@ INITRAMFS_IMAGE_BUNDLE ?= ""
# LINUX_VERSION which is a constant.
KERNEL_VERSION_NAME = "${@d.getVar('KERNEL_VERSION') or ""}"
KERNEL_VERSION_NAME[vardepvalue] = "${LINUX_VERSION}"
-KERNEL_VERSION_PKG_NAME = "${@legitimize_package_name(d.getVar('KERNEL_VERSION'))}"
-KERNEL_VERSION_PKG_NAME[vardepvalue] = "${LINUX_VERSION}"
python __anonymous () {
import re
+ if d.getVar('USER_KERNEL_VERSION_PKG') is None :
+ d.setVar('KERNEL_VERSION_PKG_NAME', "${@legitimize_package_name(d.getVar('KERNEL_VERSION'))}")
+ d.setVar('KERNEL_VERSION_PKG_NAME[vardepvalue]', "${LINUX_VERSION}")
+ else:
+ d.setVar('KERNEL_VERSION_PKG_NAME', "${@legitimize_package_name(d.getVar('USER_KERNEL_VERSION_PKG'))}")
+
# Merge KERNEL_IMAGETYPE and KERNEL_ALT_IMAGETYPE into KERNEL_IMAGETYPES
type = d.getVar('KERNEL_IMAGETYPE') or ""
alttype = d.getVar('KERNEL_ALT_IMAGETYPE') or ""
--
2.13.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kernel: user defined KERNEL_VERSION_PKG_NAME
2017-07-03 14:36 ` Razvan Heghedus
@ 2017-07-10 12:51 ` Bruce Ashfield
0 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Bruce Ashfield @ 2017-07-10 12:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Razvan Heghedus; +Cc: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 9791 bytes --]
Sorry for the slow reply. I was on vacation last week and didn't get back
to this.
Once I've waded through some email, I'll circle back and have a closer look.
Bruce
On Mon, Jul 3, 2017 at 10:36 AM, Razvan Heghedus <razvan.heghedus@ni.com>
wrote:
>
>
> On 06/29/2017 04:06 PM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 5:10 AM, Razvan Heghedus <razvan.heghedus@ni.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 06/28/2017 04:29 AM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 5:15 AM, Razvan Heghedus <razvan.heghedus@ni.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 06/26/2017 06:52 PM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 8:00 AM, Heghedus Razvan <razvan.heghedus@ni.com
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Add possibility to set KERNEL_VERSION_PKG_NAME to a user
>>>> defined value.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Heghedus Razvan <razvan.heghedus@ni.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> meta/classes/kernel.bbclass | 8 ++++++--
>>>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass b/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass
>>>> index 605c101e62..02728d5a86 100644
>>>> --- a/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass
>>>> +++ b/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass
>>>> @@ -28,12 +28,16 @@ INITRAMFS_IMAGE_BUNDLE ?= ""
>>>> # LINUX_VERSION which is a constant.
>>>> KERNEL_VERSION_NAME = "${@d.getVar('KERNEL_VERSION') or "
>>>> <$%7B@d.getVar%28%27KERNEL_VERSION%27%29or>"}"
>>>> KERNEL_VERSION_NAME[vardepvalue] = "${LINUX_VERSION}"
>>>> -KERNEL_VERSION_PKG_NAME = "${@legitimize_package_name(d.
>>>> getVar('KERNEL_VERSION'))}"
>>>> -KERNEL_VERSION_PKG_NAME[vardepvalue] = "${LINUX_VERSION}"
>>>>
>>>> python __anonymous () {
>>>> import re
>>>>
>>>> + if d.getVar('USER_KERNEL_VERSION_PKG') is None :
>>>> + d.setVar('KERNEL_VERSION_PKG_NAME',
>>>> "${@legitimize_package_name(d.getVar('KERNEL_VERSION'))}")
>>>> + d.setVar('KERNEL_VERSION_PKG_NAME[vardepvalue]',
>>>> "${LINUX_VERSION}")
>>>> + else:
>>>> + d.setVar('KERNEL_VERSION_PKG_NAME',
>>>> "${@legitimize_package_name(d.getVar('USER_KERNEL_VERSION_PKG'))}")
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is introducing yet another variable that tweaks the already complex
>>> setting of
>>> the kernel version. Not to mention this code is already touchy with
>>> respect to
>>> parse time and rebuilding of the kernel.
>>>
>>> My concern is that if this is set, we are completely disassociated with
>>> the source
>>> code of the kernel.
>>>
>>> Where did you think this would be set ? local.conf ? distro config ?
>>> somewhere else ?
>>>
>>> If we had a way to simply override KERNEL_VERSION, we wouldn't need any
>>> extra
>>> variables.
>>>
>>> Bruce
>>>
>>>
>>>> +
>>>> # Merge KERNEL_IMAGETYPE and KERNEL_ALT_IMAGETYPE into
>>>> KERNEL_IMAGETYPES
>>>> type = d.getVar('KERNEL_IMAGETYPE') or ""
>>>> alttype = d.getVar('KERNEL_ALT_IMAGETYPE') or ""
>>>> --
>>>> 2.13.1
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Openembedded-core mailing list
>>>> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
>>>> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> "Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await
>>> thee at its end"
>>>
>>> I have setting the variable in the kernel recipe. I need a way to
>>> override the KERNEL_VERSION because I want the kernel packages name to
>>> contain only a part of the version or nothing at all.
>>> I need this for the the kernel upgrade stuff, because if the package
>>> name is something like: kernel-4.9.8-{static_string} then I couldn't
>>> upgrade to a version like: kernel-4.9.10-{static_string}, because they are
>>> two different packages. I wanted a simple way to be able to have the
>>> package name : kernel-4.9-{static_string}, then I could do the upgrade for
>>> the new minor updates of the kernel.
>>>
>>
>> I could have sworn this (upgrading) was already possible via the version
>> string we
>> are currently using. i.e. the PV is already picked up from the kernel
>> source, and
>> that should be doing the job.
>>
>> i.e. when I unpack my kernel-image-bzimage-4.10.15-y
>> octo-standard_4.10.15+git0+4d929fac34_d2c1ed3c0c-r0_qemux86_64.ipk
>> package, I see that it has:
>>
>> Version: 4.10.15+git0+4d929fac34_d2c1ed3c0c-r0
>> but obviously has the general provides: Provides: kernel-image-bzimage
>>
>> So that should be upgradable based on the version ... sure they have
>> different names, but the provides
>> and versions take care of things.
>>
>> The versioning, ability to install multiple kernels, upgrades, etc, have
>> really churned
>> these variables making them a mess to read.
>>
>> I'm probably misunderstanding your use case and error, can you elaborate
>> for me
>> and/or provide a log ? I'm more of a kernel guy than a package format guy
>> .. so
>> I'm probably missing something obvious.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>>
>>
>> If I build a genericx86_64 core-image_sato without this patch, only with
>> the other patch which add the versions(only the parts that are in round
>> parenthesis) I have the following packages:
>>
>> Package: kernel-4.10.9-yocto-standard
>> Version: 4.10.9+git0+ad2e885015_fe0fb8da3d-r0
>> Depends: kernel-image-4.10.9-yocto-standard (=
>> 4.10.9+git0+ad2e885015_fe0fb8da3d-r0)
>> Provides: kernel-4.10.9-yocto-standard, kernel-base
>>
>> Package: kernel-image-4.10.9-yocto-standard
>> Version: 4.10.9+git0+ad2e885015_fe0fb8da3d-r0
>> Depends: kernel-image-bzimage-4.10.9-yocto-standard (=
>> 4.10.9+git0+ad2e885015_fe0fb8da3d-r0)
>> Provides: kernel-image
>>
>> Package: kernel-module-6lowpan-4.10.9-yocto-standard
>> Version: 4.10.9+git0+ad2e885015_fe0fb8da3d-r0
>> Depends: kernel-4.10.9-yocto-standard (= 4.10.9+git0+ad2e885015_fe0fb8d
>> a3d-r0)
>> Provides: kernel-module-6lowpan
>>
>> So the problem are the Depends field. We have the 4.10.9 part in the
>> dependents that is messing with the upgrade. If we want to do only some
>> minor update that doesn't change this value than everything is ok. It
>> works. But if we have a new value e.g. 4.10.10 than we couldn't do the
>> upgrade.
>> So that's why I came up with this patch to be able to modify the Depends
>> value to something like: kernel-image-4.10-yocto-standard, or even
>> kernel-image.
>>
>
> That's the point I'm trying to make.
>
> Patch 1/2 adds the depends, but there's no way to disable it. Without
> defining the variable
> that you have in patch 2/2, you can't upgrade the kernel packages .. which
> makes it not only
> a new variable, but a new requirement when working with the kernel
> recipes/packages.
>
> People have been upgrading the kernel before either of these patches (I
> can't say that
> I do very often .. but I know that users of the commercially supported
> distros do) .. unless
> it has been inadvertently broken, or there are more patches floating
> around that I've not
> seen.
>
> what is the upgrade behaviour with neither of these patches applied ? ..
> that's the behaviour that
> I'm most concerned about maintaining.
>
> Also, if we were to introduce something like this, the series needs to
> have documentation
> updates along with it .. or we'll surely forget to document it and catch
> people by surprise :(
>
> Bruce
>
>
> You misunderstood the first patch. It only appends the version to the
> packages in the Depends field. E.g (from the pyro branch):
>
> Package: kernel-4.10.17-yocto-standard
> Version: 4.10.17+git0+4b89f331d4_6648a34e00-r0
> Depends: kernel-image-4.10.17-yocto-standard
> Provides: kernel-4.10.17-yocto-standard, kernel-base
>
> Package: kernel-image-4.10.17-yocto-standard
> Version: 4.10.17+git0+4b89f331d4_6648a34e00-r0
> Depends: kernel-image-bzimage-4.10.17-yocto-standard
> Provides: kernel-image
>
> Package: kernel-module-6lowpan-4.10.17-yocto-standard
> Version: 4.10.17+git0+4b89f331d4_6648a34e00-r0
> Depends: kernel-4.10.17-yocto-standard
> Provides: kernel-module-6lowpan
>
> As you can see the difference from the last email was only the versions in
> the Depends field.
> About the upgrades, I only manage to upgrade the kernel only for new
> revisions version, from kernel-4.10.17-yocto-standard version
> 4.10.17+git0+4b89f331d4_6648a34e00-r0 to kernel-4.10.17-yocto-standard
> version 4.10.17+git0+4b89f331d4_6648a34e00-r1. I tried to do an upgrade
> from kernel-4.10.15-yocto-standard to kernel-4.10.17-yocto-standard, but it
> failed (For the upgrade tests I used ipk format, might be the new opkg
> solver).
>
> About the other distros based on OE, maybe they have some custom recipe
> for the kernel and somehow achieve the the same behaviour as this patch, or
> use rpm/deb, or the have custom scripts for the kernel and modules
> upgrades, or something else, idk.
>
> The idea of these patches is to have a simple and easy way to do a kernel
> upgrade(with the kernel image and installed kernel modules), because now,
> when you want to upgrade the kernel you need to manually do the upgrade for
> the kernel-image and the modules.
>
>
>
>>
>>> This was the simple and cleanest way I could think of to achieve the my
>>> scenario. But if there is a better idea for this, let me know.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Razvan
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> "Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await thee
>> at its end"
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Razvan
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> "Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await thee
> at its end"
>
>
> --
>
> Razvan
>
>
--
"Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await thee
at its end"
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 25920 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kernel: user defined KERNEL_VERSION_PKG_NAME
2017-06-29 13:06 ` Bruce Ashfield
@ 2017-07-03 14:36 ` Razvan Heghedus
2017-07-10 12:51 ` Bruce Ashfield
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Razvan Heghedus @ 2017-07-03 14:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bruce Ashfield; +Cc: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 10533 bytes --]
On 06/29/2017 04:06 PM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 5:10 AM, Razvan Heghedus
> <razvan.heghedus@ni.com <mailto:razvan.heghedus@ni.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 06/28/2017 04:29 AM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 5:15 AM, Razvan Heghedus
>> <razvan.heghedus@ni.com <mailto:razvan.heghedus@ni.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 06/26/2017 06:52 PM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 8:00 AM, Heghedus Razvan
>>> <razvan.heghedus@ni.com <mailto:razvan.heghedus@ni.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Add possibility to set KERNEL_VERSION_PKG_NAME to a user
>>> defined value.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Heghedus Razvan <razvan.heghedus@ni.com
>>> <mailto:razvan.heghedus@ni.com>>
>>> ---
>>> meta/classes/kernel.bbclass | 8 ++++++--
>>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass
>>> b/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass
>>> index 605c101e62..02728d5a86 100644
>>> --- a/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass
>>> +++ b/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass
>>> @@ -28,12 +28,16 @@ INITRAMFS_IMAGE_BUNDLE ?= ""
>>> # LINUX_VERSION which is a constant.
>>> KERNEL_VERSION_NAME = "${@d.getVar('KERNEL_VERSION') or
>>> " <mailto:$%7B@d.getVar%28%27KERNEL_VERSION%27%29or>"}"
>>> KERNEL_VERSION_NAME[vardepvalue] = "${LINUX_VERSION}"
>>> -KERNEL_VERSION_PKG_NAME =
>>> "${@legitimize_package_name(d.getVar('KERNEL_VERSION'))}"
>>> -KERNEL_VERSION_PKG_NAME[vardepvalue] = "${LINUX_VERSION}"
>>>
>>> python __anonymous () {
>>> import re
>>>
>>> + if d.getVar('USER_KERNEL_VERSION_PKG') is None :
>>> + d.setVar('KERNEL_VERSION_PKG_NAME',
>>> "${@legitimize_package_name(d.getVar('KERNEL_VERSION'))}")
>>> + d.setVar('KERNEL_VERSION_PKG_NAME[vardepvalue]',
>>> "${LINUX_VERSION}")
>>> + else:
>>> + d.setVar('KERNEL_VERSION_PKG_NAME',
>>> "${@legitimize_package_name(d.getVar('USER_KERNEL_VERSION_PKG'))}")
>>>
>>>
>>> This is introducing yet another variable that tweaks the
>>> already complex setting of
>>> the kernel version. Not to mention this code is already
>>> touchy with respect to
>>> parse time and rebuilding of the kernel.
>>>
>>> My concern is that if this is set, we are completely
>>> disassociated with the source
>>> code of the kernel.
>>>
>>> Where did you think this would be set ? local.conf ? distro
>>> config ? somewhere else ?
>>>
>>> If we had a way to simply override KERNEL_VERSION, we
>>> wouldn't need any extra
>>> variables.
>>>
>>> Bruce
>>>
>>> +
>>> # Merge KERNEL_IMAGETYPE and KERNEL_ALT_IMAGETYPE
>>> into KERNEL_IMAGETYPES
>>> type = d.getVar('KERNEL_IMAGETYPE') or ""
>>> alttype = d.getVar('KERNEL_ALT_IMAGETYPE') or ""
>>> --
>>> 2.13.1
>>>
>>> --
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Openembedded-core mailing list
>>> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
>>> <mailto:Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org>
>>> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
>>> <http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> "Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and
>>> madness await thee at its end"
>> I have setting the variable in the kernel recipe. I need a
>> way to override the KERNEL_VERSION because I want the kernel
>> packages name to contain only a part of the version or
>> nothing at all.
>> I need this for the the kernel upgrade stuff, because if the
>> package name is something like: kernel-4.9.8-{static_string}
>> then I couldn't upgrade to a version like:
>> kernel-4.9.10-{static_string}, because they are two different
>> packages. I wanted a simple way to be able to have the
>> package name : kernel-4.9-{static_string}, then I could do
>> the upgrade for the new minor updates of the kernel.
>>
>>
>> I could have sworn this (upgrading) was already possible via the
>> version string we
>> are currently using. i.e. the PV is already picked up from the
>> kernel source, and
>> that should be doing the job.
>>
>> i.e. when I unpack my
>> kernel-image-bzimage-4.10.15-yocto-standard_4.10.15+git0+4d929fac34_d2c1ed3c0c-r0_qemux86_64.ipk
>> package, I see that it has:
>>
>> Version: 4.10.15+git0+4d929fac34_d2c1ed3c0c-r0
>> but obviously has the general provides: Provides:
>> kernel-image-bzimage
>>
>> So that should be upgradable based on the version ... sure they
>> have different names, but the provides
>> and versions take care of things.
>>
>> The versioning, ability to install multiple kernels, upgrades,
>> etc, have really churned
>> these variables making them a mess to read.
>>
>> I'm probably misunderstanding your use case and error, can you
>> elaborate for me
>> and/or provide a log ? I'm more of a kernel guy than a package
>> format guy .. so
>> I'm probably missing something obvious.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
> If I build a genericx86_64 core-image_sato without this patch,
> only with the other patch which add the versions(only the parts
> that are in round parenthesis) I have the following packages:
>
> Package: kernel-4.10.9-yocto-standard
> Version: 4.10.9+git0+ad2e885015_fe0fb8da3d-r0
> Depends: kernel-image-4.10.9-yocto-standard (=
> 4.10.9+git0+ad2e885015_fe0fb8da3d-r0)
> Provides: kernel-4.10.9-yocto-standard, kernel-base
>
> Package: kernel-image-4.10.9-yocto-standard
> Version: 4.10.9+git0+ad2e885015_fe0fb8da3d-r0
> Depends: kernel-image-bzimage-4.10.9-yocto-standard (=
> 4.10.9+git0+ad2e885015_fe0fb8da3d-r0)
> Provides: kernel-image
>
> Package: kernel-module-6lowpan-4.10.9-yocto-standard
> Version: 4.10.9+git0+ad2e885015_fe0fb8da3d-r0
> Depends: kernel-4.10.9-yocto-standard (=
> 4.10.9+git0+ad2e885015_fe0fb8da3d-r0)
> Provides: kernel-module-6lowpan
>
> So the problem are the Depends field. We have the 4.10.9 part in
> the dependents that is messing with the upgrade. If we want to do
> only some minor update that doesn't change this value than
> everything is ok. It works. But if we have a new value e.g.
> 4.10.10 than we couldn't do the upgrade.
> So that's why I came up with this patch to be able to modify the
> Depends value to something like: kernel-image-4.10-yocto-standard,
> or even kernel-image.
>
>
> That's the point I'm trying to make.
>
> Patch 1/2 adds the depends, but there's no way to disable it. Without
> defining the variable
> that you have in patch 2/2, you can't upgrade the kernel packages ..
> which makes it not only
> a new variable, but a new requirement when working with the kernel
> recipes/packages.
>
> People have been upgrading the kernel before either of these patches
> (I can't say that
> I do very often .. but I know that users of the commercially supported
> distros do) .. unless
> it has been inadvertently broken, or there are more patches floating
> around that I've not
> seen.
>
> what is the upgrade behaviour with neither of these patches applied ?
> .. that's the behaviour that
> I'm most concerned about maintaining.
>
> Also, if we were to introduce something like this, the series needs to
> have documentation
> updates along with it .. or we'll surely forget to document it and
> catch people by surprise :(
>
> Bruce
You misunderstood the first patch. It only appends the version to the
packages in the Depends field. E.g (from the pyro branch):
Package: kernel-4.10.17-yocto-standard
Version: 4.10.17+git0+4b89f331d4_6648a34e00-r0
Depends: kernel-image-4.10.17-yocto-standard
Provides: kernel-4.10.17-yocto-standard, kernel-base
Package: kernel-image-4.10.17-yocto-standard
Version: 4.10.17+git0+4b89f331d4_6648a34e00-r0
Depends: kernel-image-bzimage-4.10.17-yocto-standard
Provides: kernel-image
Package: kernel-module-6lowpan-4.10.17-yocto-standard
Version: 4.10.17+git0+4b89f331d4_6648a34e00-r0
Depends: kernel-4.10.17-yocto-standard
Provides: kernel-module-6lowpan
As you can see the difference from the last email was only the versions
in the Depends field.
About the upgrades, I only manage to upgrade the kernel only for new
revisions version, from kernel-4.10.17-yocto-standard version
4.10.17+git0+4b89f331d4_6648a34e00-r0 to kernel-4.10.17-yocto-standard
version 4.10.17+git0+4b89f331d4_6648a34e00-r1. I tried to do an upgrade
from kernel-4.10.15-yocto-standard to kernel-4.10.17-yocto-standard, but
it failed (For the upgrade tests I used ipk format, might be the new
opkg solver).
About the other distros based on OE, maybe they have some custom recipe
for the kernel and somehow achieve the the same behaviour as this patch,
or use rpm/deb, or the have custom scripts for the kernel and modules
upgrades, or something else, idk.
The idea of these patches is to have a simple and easy way to do a
kernel upgrade(with the kernel image and installed kernel modules),
because now, when you want to upgrade the kernel you need to manually do
the upgrade for the kernel-image and the modules.
>>
>> This was the simple and cleanest way I could think of to
>> achieve the my scenario. But if there is a better idea for
>> this, let me know.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Razvan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> "Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness
>> await thee at its end"
>
> --
>
> Razvan
>
>
>
>
> --
> "Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await
> thee at its end"
--
Razvan
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 26601 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kernel: user defined KERNEL_VERSION_PKG_NAME
2017-06-29 9:10 ` Razvan Heghedus
@ 2017-06-29 13:06 ` Bruce Ashfield
2017-07-03 14:36 ` Razvan Heghedus
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Bruce Ashfield @ 2017-06-29 13:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Razvan Heghedus; +Cc: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7282 bytes --]
On Thu, Jun 29, 2017 at 5:10 AM, Razvan Heghedus <razvan.heghedus@ni.com>
wrote:
>
>
> On 06/28/2017 04:29 AM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 5:15 AM, Razvan Heghedus <razvan.heghedus@ni.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 06/26/2017 06:52 PM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 8:00 AM, Heghedus Razvan <razvan.heghedus@ni.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Add possibility to set KERNEL_VERSION_PKG_NAME to a user
>>> defined value.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Heghedus Razvan <razvan.heghedus@ni.com>
>>> ---
>>> meta/classes/kernel.bbclass | 8 ++++++--
>>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass b/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass
>>> index 605c101e62..02728d5a86 100644
>>> --- a/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass
>>> +++ b/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass
>>> @@ -28,12 +28,16 @@ INITRAMFS_IMAGE_BUNDLE ?= ""
>>> # LINUX_VERSION which is a constant.
>>> KERNEL_VERSION_NAME = "${@d.getVar('KERNEL_VERSION') or "
>>> <$%7B@d.getVar%28%27KERNEL_VERSION%27%29or>"}"
>>> KERNEL_VERSION_NAME[vardepvalue] = "${LINUX_VERSION}"
>>> -KERNEL_VERSION_PKG_NAME = "${@legitimize_package_name(d.
>>> getVar('KERNEL_VERSION'))}"
>>> -KERNEL_VERSION_PKG_NAME[vardepvalue] = "${LINUX_VERSION}"
>>>
>>> python __anonymous () {
>>> import re
>>>
>>> + if d.getVar('USER_KERNEL_VERSION_PKG') is None :
>>> + d.setVar('KERNEL_VERSION_PKG_NAME',
>>> "${@legitimize_package_name(d.getVar('KERNEL_VERSION'))}")
>>> + d.setVar('KERNEL_VERSION_PKG_NAME[vardepvalue]',
>>> "${LINUX_VERSION}")
>>> + else:
>>> + d.setVar('KERNEL_VERSION_PKG_NAME',
>>> "${@legitimize_package_name(d.getVar('USER_KERNEL_VERSION_PKG'))}")
>>>
>>
>> This is introducing yet another variable that tweaks the already complex
>> setting of
>> the kernel version. Not to mention this code is already touchy with
>> respect to
>> parse time and rebuilding of the kernel.
>>
>> My concern is that if this is set, we are completely disassociated with
>> the source
>> code of the kernel.
>>
>> Where did you think this would be set ? local.conf ? distro config ?
>> somewhere else ?
>>
>> If we had a way to simply override KERNEL_VERSION, we wouldn't need any
>> extra
>> variables.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>>
>>> +
>>> # Merge KERNEL_IMAGETYPE and KERNEL_ALT_IMAGETYPE into
>>> KERNEL_IMAGETYPES
>>> type = d.getVar('KERNEL_IMAGETYPE') or ""
>>> alttype = d.getVar('KERNEL_ALT_IMAGETYPE') or ""
>>> --
>>> 2.13.1
>>>
>>> --
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Openembedded-core mailing list
>>> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
>>> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> "Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await thee
>> at its end"
>>
>> I have setting the variable in the kernel recipe. I need a way to
>> override the KERNEL_VERSION because I want the kernel packages name to
>> contain only a part of the version or nothing at all.
>> I need this for the the kernel upgrade stuff, because if the package name
>> is something like: kernel-4.9.8-{static_string} then I couldn't upgrade to
>> a version like: kernel-4.9.10-{static_string}, because they are two
>> different packages. I wanted a simple way to be able to have the package
>> name : kernel-4.9-{static_string}, then I could do the upgrade for the new
>> minor updates of the kernel.
>>
>
> I could have sworn this (upgrading) was already possible via the version
> string we
> are currently using. i.e. the PV is already picked up from the kernel
> source, and
> that should be doing the job.
>
> i.e. when I unpack my kernel-image-bzimage-4.10.15-y
> octo-standard_4.10.15+git0+4d929fac34_d2c1ed3c0c-r0_qemux86_64.ipk
> package, I see that it has:
>
> Version: 4.10.15+git0+4d929fac34_d2c1ed3c0c-r0
> but obviously has the general provides: Provides: kernel-image-bzimage
>
> So that should be upgradable based on the version ... sure they have
> different names, but the provides
> and versions take care of things.
>
> The versioning, ability to install multiple kernels, upgrades, etc, have
> really churned
> these variables making them a mess to read.
>
> I'm probably misunderstanding your use case and error, can you elaborate
> for me
> and/or provide a log ? I'm more of a kernel guy than a package format guy
> .. so
> I'm probably missing something obvious.
>
> Bruce
>
>
>
> If I build a genericx86_64 core-image_sato without this patch, only with
> the other patch which add the versions(only the parts that are in round
> parenthesis) I have the following packages:
>
> Package: kernel-4.10.9-yocto-standard
> Version: 4.10.9+git0+ad2e885015_fe0fb8da3d-r0
> Depends: kernel-image-4.10.9-yocto-standard (=
> 4.10.9+git0+ad2e885015_fe0fb8da3d-r0)
> Provides: kernel-4.10.9-yocto-standard, kernel-base
>
> Package: kernel-image-4.10.9-yocto-standard
> Version: 4.10.9+git0+ad2e885015_fe0fb8da3d-r0
> Depends: kernel-image-bzimage-4.10.9-yocto-standard (=
> 4.10.9+git0+ad2e885015_fe0fb8da3d-r0)
> Provides: kernel-image
>
> Package: kernel-module-6lowpan-4.10.9-yocto-standard
> Version: 4.10.9+git0+ad2e885015_fe0fb8da3d-r0
> Depends: kernel-4.10.9-yocto-standard (= 4.10.9+git0+ad2e885015_fe0fb8d
> a3d-r0)
> Provides: kernel-module-6lowpan
>
> So the problem are the Depends field. We have the 4.10.9 part in the
> dependents that is messing with the upgrade. If we want to do only some
> minor update that doesn't change this value than everything is ok. It
> works. But if we have a new value e.g. 4.10.10 than we couldn't do the
> upgrade.
> So that's why I came up with this patch to be able to modify the Depends
> value to something like: kernel-image-4.10-yocto-standard, or even
> kernel-image.
>
That's the point I'm trying to make.
Patch 1/2 adds the depends, but there's no way to disable it. Without
defining the variable
that you have in patch 2/2, you can't upgrade the kernel packages .. which
makes it not only
a new variable, but a new requirement when working with the kernel
recipes/packages.
People have been upgrading the kernel before either of these patches (I
can't say that
I do very often .. but I know that users of the commercially supported
distros do) .. unless
it has been inadvertently broken, or there are more patches floating around
that I've not
seen.
what is the upgrade behaviour with neither of these patches applied ? ..
that's the behaviour that
I'm most concerned about maintaining.
Also, if we were to introduce something like this, the series needs to have
documentation
updates along with it .. or we'll surely forget to document it and catch
people by surprise :(
Bruce
>
>> This was the simple and cleanest way I could think of to achieve the my
>> scenario. But if there is a better idea for this, let me know.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Razvan
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> "Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await thee
> at its end"
>
>
> --
>
> Razvan
>
>
--
"Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await thee
at its end"
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 16215 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kernel: user defined KERNEL_VERSION_PKG_NAME
2017-06-28 1:29 ` Bruce Ashfield
@ 2017-06-29 9:10 ` Razvan Heghedus
2017-06-29 13:06 ` Bruce Ashfield
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Razvan Heghedus @ 2017-06-29 9:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bruce Ashfield; +Cc: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6737 bytes --]
On 06/28/2017 04:29 AM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 5:15 AM, Razvan Heghedus
> <razvan.heghedus@ni.com <mailto:razvan.heghedus@ni.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 06/26/2017 06:52 PM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 8:00 AM, Heghedus Razvan
>> <razvan.heghedus@ni.com <mailto:razvan.heghedus@ni.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Add possibility to set KERNEL_VERSION_PKG_NAME to a user
>> defined value.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Heghedus Razvan <razvan.heghedus@ni.com
>> <mailto:razvan.heghedus@ni.com>>
>> ---
>> meta/classes/kernel.bbclass | 8 ++++++--
>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass
>> b/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass
>> index 605c101e62..02728d5a86 100644
>> --- a/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass
>> +++ b/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass
>> @@ -28,12 +28,16 @@ INITRAMFS_IMAGE_BUNDLE ?= ""
>> # LINUX_VERSION which is a constant.
>> KERNEL_VERSION_NAME = "${@d.getVar('KERNEL_VERSION') or "
>> <mailto:$%7B@d.getVar%28%27KERNEL_VERSION%27%29or>"}"
>> KERNEL_VERSION_NAME[vardepvalue] = "${LINUX_VERSION}"
>> -KERNEL_VERSION_PKG_NAME =
>> "${@legitimize_package_name(d.getVar('KERNEL_VERSION'))}"
>> -KERNEL_VERSION_PKG_NAME[vardepvalue] = "${LINUX_VERSION}"
>>
>> python __anonymous () {
>> import re
>>
>> + if d.getVar('USER_KERNEL_VERSION_PKG') is None :
>> + d.setVar('KERNEL_VERSION_PKG_NAME',
>> "${@legitimize_package_name(d.getVar('KERNEL_VERSION'))}")
>> + d.setVar('KERNEL_VERSION_PKG_NAME[vardepvalue]',
>> "${LINUX_VERSION}")
>> + else:
>> + d.setVar('KERNEL_VERSION_PKG_NAME',
>> "${@legitimize_package_name(d.getVar('USER_KERNEL_VERSION_PKG'))}")
>>
>>
>> This is introducing yet another variable that tweaks the already
>> complex setting of
>> the kernel version. Not to mention this code is already touchy
>> with respect to
>> parse time and rebuilding of the kernel.
>>
>> My concern is that if this is set, we are completely
>> disassociated with the source
>> code of the kernel.
>>
>> Where did you think this would be set ? local.conf ? distro
>> config ? somewhere else ?
>>
>> If we had a way to simply override KERNEL_VERSION, we wouldn't
>> need any extra
>> variables.
>>
>> Bruce
>>
>> +
>> # Merge KERNEL_IMAGETYPE and KERNEL_ALT_IMAGETYPE into
>> KERNEL_IMAGETYPES
>> type = d.getVar('KERNEL_IMAGETYPE') or ""
>> alttype = d.getVar('KERNEL_ALT_IMAGETYPE') or ""
>> --
>> 2.13.1
>>
>> --
>> _______________________________________________
>> Openembedded-core mailing list
>> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
>> <mailto:Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org>
>> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
>> <http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> "Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness
>> await thee at its end"
> I have setting the variable in the kernel recipe. I need a way to
> override the KERNEL_VERSION because I want the kernel packages
> name to contain only a part of the version or nothing at all.
> I need this for the the kernel upgrade stuff, because if the
> package name is something like: kernel-4.9.8-{static_string} then
> I couldn't upgrade to a version like:
> kernel-4.9.10-{static_string}, because they are two different
> packages. I wanted a simple way to be able to have the package
> name : kernel-4.9-{static_string}, then I could do the upgrade for
> the new minor updates of the kernel.
>
>
> I could have sworn this (upgrading) was already possible via the
> version string we
> are currently using. i.e. the PV is already picked up from the kernel
> source, and
> that should be doing the job.
>
> i.e. when I unpack my
> kernel-image-bzimage-4.10.15-yocto-standard_4.10.15+git0+4d929fac34_d2c1ed3c0c-r0_qemux86_64.ipk
> package, I see that it has:
>
> Version: 4.10.15+git0+4d929fac34_d2c1ed3c0c-r0
> but obviously has the general provides: Provides: kernel-image-bzimage
>
> So that should be upgradable based on the version ... sure they have
> different names, but the provides
> and versions take care of things.
>
> The versioning, ability to install multiple kernels, upgrades, etc,
> have really churned
> these variables making them a mess to read.
>
> I'm probably misunderstanding your use case and error, can you
> elaborate for me
> and/or provide a log ? I'm more of a kernel guy than a package format
> guy .. so
> I'm probably missing something obvious.
>
> Bruce
>
If I build a genericx86_64 core-image_sato without this patch, only with
the other patch which add the versions(only the parts that are in round
parenthesis) I have the following packages:
Package: kernel-4.10.9-yocto-standard
Version: 4.10.9+git0+ad2e885015_fe0fb8da3d-r0
Depends: kernel-image-4.10.9-yocto-standard (=
4.10.9+git0+ad2e885015_fe0fb8da3d-r0)
Provides: kernel-4.10.9-yocto-standard, kernel-base
Package: kernel-image-4.10.9-yocto-standard
Version: 4.10.9+git0+ad2e885015_fe0fb8da3d-r0
Depends: kernel-image-bzimage-4.10.9-yocto-standard (=
4.10.9+git0+ad2e885015_fe0fb8da3d-r0)
Provides: kernel-image
Package: kernel-module-6lowpan-4.10.9-yocto-standard
Version: 4.10.9+git0+ad2e885015_fe0fb8da3d-r0
Depends: kernel-4.10.9-yocto-standard (=
4.10.9+git0+ad2e885015_fe0fb8da3d-r0)
Provides: kernel-module-6lowpan
So the problem are the Depends field. We have the 4.10.9 part in the
dependents that is messing with the upgrade. If we want to do only some
minor update that doesn't change this value than everything is ok. It
works. But if we have a new value e.g. 4.10.10 than we couldn't do the
upgrade.
So that's why I came up with this patch to be able to modify the Depends
value to something like: kernel-image-4.10-yocto-standard, or even
kernel-image.
>
>
> This was the simple and cleanest way I could think of to achieve
> the my scenario. But if there is a better idea for this, let me know.
>
> --
>
> Razvan
>
>
>
>
> --
> "Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await
> thee at its end"
--
Razvan
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 14657 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kernel: user defined KERNEL_VERSION_PKG_NAME
2017-06-27 9:15 ` Razvan Heghedus
@ 2017-06-28 1:29 ` Bruce Ashfield
2017-06-29 9:10 ` Razvan Heghedus
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Bruce Ashfield @ 2017-06-28 1:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Razvan Heghedus; +Cc: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4514 bytes --]
On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 5:15 AM, Razvan Heghedus <razvan.heghedus@ni.com>
wrote:
>
>
> On 06/26/2017 06:52 PM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 8:00 AM, Heghedus Razvan <razvan.heghedus@ni.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Add possibility to set KERNEL_VERSION_PKG_NAME to a user
>> defined value.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Heghedus Razvan <razvan.heghedus@ni.com>
>> ---
>> meta/classes/kernel.bbclass | 8 ++++++--
>> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass b/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass
>> index 605c101e62..02728d5a86 100644
>> --- a/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass
>> +++ b/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass
>> @@ -28,12 +28,16 @@ INITRAMFS_IMAGE_BUNDLE ?= ""
>> # LINUX_VERSION which is a constant.
>> KERNEL_VERSION_NAME = "${@d.getVar('KERNEL_VERSION') or "
>> <$%7B@d.getVar('KERNEL_VERSION')or>"}"
>> KERNEL_VERSION_NAME[vardepvalue] = "${LINUX_VERSION}"
>> -KERNEL_VERSION_PKG_NAME = "${@legitimize_package_name(d.
>> getVar('KERNEL_VERSION'))}"
>> -KERNEL_VERSION_PKG_NAME[vardepvalue] = "${LINUX_VERSION}"
>>
>> python __anonymous () {
>> import re
>>
>> + if d.getVar('USER_KERNEL_VERSION_PKG') is None :
>> + d.setVar('KERNEL_VERSION_PKG_NAME',
>> "${@legitimize_package_name(d.getVar('KERNEL_VERSION'))}")
>> + d.setVar('KERNEL_VERSION_PKG_NAME[vardepvalue]',
>> "${LINUX_VERSION}")
>> + else:
>> + d.setVar('KERNEL_VERSION_PKG_NAME',
>> "${@legitimize_package_name(d.getVar('USER_KERNEL_VERSION_PKG'))}")
>>
>
> This is introducing yet another variable that tweaks the already complex
> setting of
> the kernel version. Not to mention this code is already touchy with
> respect to
> parse time and rebuilding of the kernel.
>
> My concern is that if this is set, we are completely disassociated with
> the source
> code of the kernel.
>
> Where did you think this would be set ? local.conf ? distro config ?
> somewhere else ?
>
> If we had a way to simply override KERNEL_VERSION, we wouldn't need any
> extra
> variables.
>
> Bruce
>
>
>> +
>> # Merge KERNEL_IMAGETYPE and KERNEL_ALT_IMAGETYPE into
>> KERNEL_IMAGETYPES
>> type = d.getVar('KERNEL_IMAGETYPE') or ""
>> alttype = d.getVar('KERNEL_ALT_IMAGETYPE') or ""
>> --
>> 2.13.1
>>
>> --
>> _______________________________________________
>> Openembedded-core mailing list
>> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
>> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
>>
>
>
>
> --
> "Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await thee
> at its end"
>
> I have setting the variable in the kernel recipe. I need a way to override
> the KERNEL_VERSION because I want the kernel packages name to contain only
> a part of the version or nothing at all.
> I need this for the the kernel upgrade stuff, because if the package name
> is something like: kernel-4.9.8-{static_string} then I couldn't upgrade to
> a version like: kernel-4.9.10-{static_string}, because they are two
> different packages. I wanted a simple way to be able to have the package
> name : kernel-4.9-{static_string}, then I could do the upgrade for the new
> minor updates of the kernel.
>
I could have sworn this (upgrading) was already possible via the version
string we
are currently using. i.e. the PV is already picked up from the kernel
source, and
that should be doing the job.
i.e. when I unpack my
kernel-image-bzimage-4.10.15-yocto-standard_4.10.15+git0+4d929fac34_d2c1ed3c0c-r0_qemux86_64.ipk
package, I see that it has:
Version: 4.10.15+git0+4d929fac34_d2c1ed3c0c-r0
but obviously has the general provides: Provides: kernel-image-bzimage
So that should be upgradable based on the version ... sure they have
different names, but the provides
and versions take care of things.
The versioning, ability to install multiple kernels, upgrades, etc, have
really churned
these variables making them a mess to read.
I'm probably misunderstanding your use case and error, can you elaborate
for me
and/or provide a log ? I'm more of a kernel guy than a package format guy
.. so
I'm probably missing something obvious.
Bruce
>
> This was the simple and cleanest way I could think of to achieve the my
> scenario. But if there is a better idea for this, let me know.
>
> --
>
> Razvan
>
>
--
"Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await thee
at its end"
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 8473 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kernel: user defined KERNEL_VERSION_PKG_NAME
2017-06-26 15:52 ` Bruce Ashfield
@ 2017-06-27 9:15 ` Razvan Heghedus
2017-06-28 1:29 ` Bruce Ashfield
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Razvan Heghedus @ 2017-06-27 9:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bruce Ashfield; +Cc: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3591 bytes --]
On 06/26/2017 06:52 PM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 8:00 AM, Heghedus Razvan
> <razvan.heghedus@ni.com <mailto:razvan.heghedus@ni.com>> wrote:
>
> Add possibility to set KERNEL_VERSION_PKG_NAME to a user
> defined value.
>
> Signed-off-by: Heghedus Razvan <razvan.heghedus@ni.com
> <mailto:razvan.heghedus@ni.com>>
> ---
> meta/classes/kernel.bbclass | 8 ++++++--
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass b/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass
> index 605c101e62..02728d5a86 100644
> --- a/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass
> +++ b/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass
> @@ -28,12 +28,16 @@ INITRAMFS_IMAGE_BUNDLE ?= ""
> # LINUX_VERSION which is a constant.
> KERNEL_VERSION_NAME = "${@d.getVar('KERNEL_VERSION') or ""}"
> KERNEL_VERSION_NAME[vardepvalue] = "${LINUX_VERSION}"
> -KERNEL_VERSION_PKG_NAME =
> "${@legitimize_package_name(d.getVar('KERNEL_VERSION'))}"
> -KERNEL_VERSION_PKG_NAME[vardepvalue] = "${LINUX_VERSION}"
>
> python __anonymous () {
> import re
>
> + if d.getVar('USER_KERNEL_VERSION_PKG') is None :
> + d.setVar('KERNEL_VERSION_PKG_NAME',
> "${@legitimize_package_name(d.getVar('KERNEL_VERSION'))}")
> + d.setVar('KERNEL_VERSION_PKG_NAME[vardepvalue]',
> "${LINUX_VERSION}")
> + else:
> + d.setVar('KERNEL_VERSION_PKG_NAME',
> "${@legitimize_package_name(d.getVar('USER_KERNEL_VERSION_PKG'))}")
>
>
> This is introducing yet another variable that tweaks the already
> complex setting of
> the kernel version. Not to mention this code is already touchy with
> respect to
> parse time and rebuilding of the kernel.
>
> My concern is that if this is set, we are completely disassociated
> with the source
> code of the kernel.
>
> Where did you think this would be set ? local.conf ? distro config ?
> somewhere else ?
>
> If we had a way to simply override KERNEL_VERSION, we wouldn't need
> any extra
> variables.
>
> Bruce
>
> +
> # Merge KERNEL_IMAGETYPE and KERNEL_ALT_IMAGETYPE into
> KERNEL_IMAGETYPES
> type = d.getVar('KERNEL_IMAGETYPE') or ""
> alttype = d.getVar('KERNEL_ALT_IMAGETYPE') or ""
> --
> 2.13.1
>
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> <mailto:Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org>
> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
> <http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core>
>
>
>
>
> --
> "Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await
> thee at its end"
I have setting the variable in the kernel recipe. I need a way to
override the KERNEL_VERSION because I want the kernel packages name to
contain only a part of the version or nothing at all.
I need this for the the kernel upgrade stuff, because if the package
name is something like: kernel-4.9.8-{static_string} then I couldn't
upgrade to a version like: kernel-4.9.10-{static_string}, because they
are two different packages. I wanted a simple way to be able to have the
package name : kernel-4.9-{static_string}, then I could do the upgrade
for the new minor updates of the kernel.
This was the simple and cleanest way I could think of to achieve the my
scenario. But if there is a better idea for this, let me know.
--
Razvan
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6601 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 2/2] kernel: user defined KERNEL_VERSION_PKG_NAME
2017-06-21 12:00 ` [PATCH 2/2] kernel: user defined KERNEL_VERSION_PKG_NAME Heghedus Razvan
@ 2017-06-26 15:52 ` Bruce Ashfield
2017-06-27 9:15 ` Razvan Heghedus
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Bruce Ashfield @ 2017-06-26 15:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Heghedus Razvan; +Cc: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2364 bytes --]
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 8:00 AM, Heghedus Razvan <razvan.heghedus@ni.com>
wrote:
> Add possibility to set KERNEL_VERSION_PKG_NAME to a user
> defined value.
>
> Signed-off-by: Heghedus Razvan <razvan.heghedus@ni.com>
> ---
> meta/classes/kernel.bbclass | 8 ++++++--
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass b/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass
> index 605c101e62..02728d5a86 100644
> --- a/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass
> +++ b/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass
> @@ -28,12 +28,16 @@ INITRAMFS_IMAGE_BUNDLE ?= ""
> # LINUX_VERSION which is a constant.
> KERNEL_VERSION_NAME = "${@d.getVar('KERNEL_VERSION') or ""}"
> KERNEL_VERSION_NAME[vardepvalue] = "${LINUX_VERSION}"
> -KERNEL_VERSION_PKG_NAME = "${@legitimize_package_name(d.
> getVar('KERNEL_VERSION'))}"
> -KERNEL_VERSION_PKG_NAME[vardepvalue] = "${LINUX_VERSION}"
>
> python __anonymous () {
> import re
>
> + if d.getVar('USER_KERNEL_VERSION_PKG') is None :
> + d.setVar('KERNEL_VERSION_PKG_NAME',
> "${@legitimize_package_name(d.getVar('KERNEL_VERSION'))}")
> + d.setVar('KERNEL_VERSION_PKG_NAME[vardepvalue]',
> "${LINUX_VERSION}")
> + else:
> + d.setVar('KERNEL_VERSION_PKG_NAME',
> "${@legitimize_package_name(d.getVar('USER_KERNEL_VERSION_PKG'))}")
>
This is introducing yet another variable that tweaks the already complex
setting of
the kernel version. Not to mention this code is already touchy with respect
to
parse time and rebuilding of the kernel.
My concern is that if this is set, we are completely disassociated with the
source
code of the kernel.
Where did you think this would be set ? local.conf ? distro config ?
somewhere else ?
If we had a way to simply override KERNEL_VERSION, we wouldn't need any
extra
variables.
Bruce
> +
> # Merge KERNEL_IMAGETYPE and KERNEL_ALT_IMAGETYPE into
> KERNEL_IMAGETYPES
> type = d.getVar('KERNEL_IMAGETYPE') or ""
> alttype = d.getVar('KERNEL_ALT_IMAGETYPE') or ""
> --
> 2.13.1
>
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
>
--
"Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await thee
at its end"
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3754 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 2/2] kernel: user defined KERNEL_VERSION_PKG_NAME
2017-06-21 12:00 [PATCH 1/2] kernel: add package version in dependencies for kernel packages Heghedus Razvan
@ 2017-06-21 12:00 ` Heghedus Razvan
2017-06-26 15:52 ` Bruce Ashfield
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Heghedus Razvan @ 2017-06-21 12:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: openembedded-core
Add possibility to set KERNEL_VERSION_PKG_NAME to a user
defined value.
Signed-off-by: Heghedus Razvan <razvan.heghedus@ni.com>
---
meta/classes/kernel.bbclass | 8 ++++++--
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass b/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass
index 605c101e62..02728d5a86 100644
--- a/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass
+++ b/meta/classes/kernel.bbclass
@@ -28,12 +28,16 @@ INITRAMFS_IMAGE_BUNDLE ?= ""
# LINUX_VERSION which is a constant.
KERNEL_VERSION_NAME = "${@d.getVar('KERNEL_VERSION') or ""}"
KERNEL_VERSION_NAME[vardepvalue] = "${LINUX_VERSION}"
-KERNEL_VERSION_PKG_NAME = "${@legitimize_package_name(d.getVar('KERNEL_VERSION'))}"
-KERNEL_VERSION_PKG_NAME[vardepvalue] = "${LINUX_VERSION}"
python __anonymous () {
import re
+ if d.getVar('USER_KERNEL_VERSION_PKG') is None :
+ d.setVar('KERNEL_VERSION_PKG_NAME', "${@legitimize_package_name(d.getVar('KERNEL_VERSION'))}")
+ d.setVar('KERNEL_VERSION_PKG_NAME[vardepvalue]', "${LINUX_VERSION}")
+ else:
+ d.setVar('KERNEL_VERSION_PKG_NAME', "${@legitimize_package_name(d.getVar('USER_KERNEL_VERSION_PKG'))}")
+
# Merge KERNEL_IMAGETYPE and KERNEL_ALT_IMAGETYPE into KERNEL_IMAGETYPES
type = d.getVar('KERNEL_IMAGETYPE') or ""
alttype = d.getVar('KERNEL_ALT_IMAGETYPE') or ""
--
2.13.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2017-07-10 12:51 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <20170621104942.5601-1-razvan.heghedus@ni.com>
2017-06-21 10:49 ` [PATCH 2/2] kernel: user defined KERNEL_VERSION_PKG_NAME Heghedus Razvan
2017-06-21 12:00 [PATCH 1/2] kernel: add package version in dependencies for kernel packages Heghedus Razvan
2017-06-21 12:00 ` [PATCH 2/2] kernel: user defined KERNEL_VERSION_PKG_NAME Heghedus Razvan
2017-06-26 15:52 ` Bruce Ashfield
2017-06-27 9:15 ` Razvan Heghedus
2017-06-28 1:29 ` Bruce Ashfield
2017-06-29 9:10 ` Razvan Heghedus
2017-06-29 13:06 ` Bruce Ashfield
2017-07-03 14:36 ` Razvan Heghedus
2017-07-10 12:51 ` Bruce Ashfield
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.