[meta-freescale] [meta-fsl-arm][PATCH 1/3] u-boot: Rename recipe to u-boot-fsl
eric at eukrea.com
Fri Dec 14 07:30:24 PST 2012
Le Fri, 14 Dec 2012 13:14:54 -0200,
Otavio Salvador <otavio at ossystems.com.br> a écrit :
> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Eric Bénard <eric at eukrea.com> wrote:
> > Le Fri, 14 Dec 2012 16:15:33 +0200,
> > Andrei Gherzan <andrei at gherzan.ro> a écrit :
> >> What if uboot will have a git version in oe-core in the future? Or a
> >> greater one. How would you fix that? I still think this is a good longterm
> >> solution.
> > well, in that case the BSP recipe will be used as the layer has a higher
> > priority.
> > And to not have this kind of issue, you can simpy add the following
> > lines to your BSP's u-boot recipe :
> > DEFAULT_PREFERENCE = "-1"
> > DEFAULT_PREFERENCE_machine = "1"
> > or simply change to a u-boot_git.bbappend to just append your machine
> > specific changes to oe-core's default recipe.
> > or add something like this in your BSP conf file :
> > PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/kernel ?= "linux-yocto"
> > PREFERRED_VERSION_linux-yocto = "3.4%"
> > Check 1.2.9 in BSP Guide for examples on how this can be done (example
> > for linux-yocto but the use case is the same here).
> I agree it is a possible way of doing it however I also think we
> should opt for a safe route.
> The Andrei's proposal make it harder to it to behave strangely so I
> think it is a good option for long term. Another positive result of it
> is that the new name makes clear we're not really using u-boot
> mainline but mainline + patches. I support this change as it improves
> the clearness for new users.
that's your choice but please note that you open the door to renaming
any recipe :
- either to workaround a problem in an other (or in your own) layer
instead of really solving it
- or simply each time you add a patch to a recipe which then becomes non
IMHO renaming the recipe is not the right way to do.
More information about the meta-freescale