toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Thanks, Bruce! That's very helpful. I agree having two copies isn't ideal, so it's nice to know an approach that allows decoupling has already been considered. We'll take a look at these and consider our options.
On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 2:32 AM Diego Sueiro <diego.sueiro@...> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2021 at 05:03 AM, Kyle Russell wrote:
> > Hello,
> > meta-virtualization's linux-yocto_virtualization.inc includes
> > cfg/virtio.scc in KERNEL_FEATURES, which is a dependency from
> > yocto-kernel-cache. However, we do not use yocto-kernel-cache with our
> > custom linux-* recipe, so we're hitting a metadata error because of a
> > missing virtio.scc. It seems like the creation of linux-%.bbappend (in
> > f2f36a8061c600b35b5f0ce1599d59f1d144a3aa) was intentional to match kernel
> > recipes other than linux-yocto*, which we could benefit from, but the lack
> > of yocto-kernel-cache is problematic with virtio.scc.
> > Can meta-virtualization provide virtio.scc like it does for the other
> > kernel features to allow decoupling from yocto-kernel-cache?
> Your question made me remember about the docker.scc. Which is being maintained
> both on meta-virt and yocto-kernel-cache. And linux-yocto_virtualization.inc makes
> usage of the one from meta-virt, which feels strange to me since it is a
> **linux-yocto**_virtualization.inc file that supposedly extends linux-yocto*.bb from
> IMHO, for scc/cfg files we should try to rely on a single canonical source, and in this
> case, I believe is yocto-kernel-cache repo. Maintaining the same file for the same
> purpose in two different places brings the risk of diversion and increases maintenance
> effort to keep the instances aligned.
> Also, the yocto-kernel-cache gives us the ability to easily manage .scc files
> per kernel version.
Yes .. precisely! I'll reply to both email here, so I'm mixing replies
to Diego and
We had a similar discussion in #meta-virt about a month ago, when some AGL
builds were running into a similar issue. The layout of the includes
for the fragment were intentional, as was the broad nature of the bbappend
Without those fragments, I end up debugging end users' subtle runtime errors for
any number of packages in meta-virt, so having issues pop up when the
fragments can't be found, while annoying, is a useful flag for potential issues.
I resisted making a copy of virtio.cfg available in meta-virt for exactly the
reason Diego is bringing up. Maintaining them in two places is not ideal, and
having them centralized is the goal.
To solve the short term issue as we were talking about in #meta-virt, I did
a couple of things:
A "hack": https://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/meta-virtualization/commit/?h=master-wip&id=40cae93f631e77286de7fa79101abee2f6c04618
But if you use that, you'll need to ensure via other means that you get the
right configuration enabled.
And something that I had wanted to do for a while, which is the actual
solution I'm heading towards.
see commits: https://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/meta-virtualization/commit/?h=master-test&id=44db8ee6ddf7c9eb1b5ffb22e9b83b3840997da9
I still haven't done extensive testing with a lot of different kernels, hence
why I haven't moved them to master yet.
But with those two commits, I can remove all of the fragments in the layer
and rely on the one true reference in the kernel-cache.
> > meta-virtualization used to allow this decoupling by configuring the virtio
> > feature without the yocto-kernel-cache in
> > f1c03f390e95b63d5c2dfba9140d1b07c4d17acf, but that was restructured in
> > 21d8bcdb791a1ea766a3e7e7663c7b6d49bc861a. The dependency was not required
> > unless you were using linux-yocto, but as of f2f36a8061c60 is now required
> > for all linux-% recipes. (We just now noticed because our linux recipe has
> > recently been updated to match a kernel version supported by
> > meta-virtualization.
> > Thanks,
> > Kyle
- Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await
thee at its end
- "Use the force Harry" - Gandalf, Star Trek II