On 11-08-18 01:31 AM, Darren Hart wrote:

On 08/17/2011 09:40 PM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:

On 11-08-18 12:11 AM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:

On 11-08-17 11:23 PM, Darren Hart wrote:

We have just rolled out PREFERRED_VERSION="3.0+git%", and these now fail
with messages like:

NOTE: preferred version 3.0+git% of linux-yocto not available (for item
virtual/kernel)

I could patch everything really quick to use 3.0.1+git%... but 3.0.2 was
just released and I'd have to do it again tomorrow. For 2.6.37, the

and 3.0.3 is out...

LINUX_VERSION remained the same across point releases. I recommend we do
the same for 3.0. I really don't want to have to go through and update
all the PREFERRED_VERSIONs in addition to all the SRCREVs everytime a
point release comes out.

I made this change due to some other explicit requests about the
kernel version not being obvious. I don't really see this as a big
deal, I'm already updating SRCREVs, we are already updating the
SRCREVs in the meta-* layers .. so I fail to see how this is much
more load.

Don't forget the -rt variant, it is still at 3.0.

I'd argue that 2.6.37 was a mistake, and you shouldn't even need
to set the preferred version anymore once the latest kernel works
for your machines. It will always be selected and you shouldn't
need to force it. We only needed this during the transition phase,
and I'm about to change the default in meta-yocto .. so you definitely
won't need it.

Another thought on this is that we follow up on the discussion that
we had when I first had to force some boards back to 2.6.37. We drop
all the preferred version manipulations and control this via
DEFAULT_PREFERENCE.

I can just set DEFAULT_PREFERENCE = -1 in the linux-yocto_<ver>.bb
file, and as machines are tested/validated, they'll just set
the DEFAULT_PREFERENCE_$MACHINE in their recipe/bbappend file. That
saves us all the PREFERRED version fun.

It makes a lot more sense to me to specify the kernel to use in the
machine config and not allow whatever recipe claim DEFAULT_PREFERENCE
for the machines.

Alternatively, we go back to just setting it to 3.0 and leaving it
there and those folks that don't want to check the tags in the kernel
I can put a comment in the recipe that lets them know the true
version.

It is a bit odd to have to specify a version that doesn't match the
filename itself. But I guess we already have to do that in part with the
"+git%" thing. What is the "%" by the way - is it a wildcard? If so, can
we use a wildcard to include point releases?

It is a wildcard .. I tried briefly to get it to match the point
release. I had the same problem here, and didn't get the right
combination to match the point release. I'll look at it more today
as well .. or if someone knows the matching semantics off the top
of their head, feel free to speak up! :)

Bruce