Patchwork [meta-fsl-arm] u-boot-fslc: Add tag to git SRC_URI

login
register
mail settings
Submitter John Weber
Date Dec. 9, 2013, 4:10 p.m.
Message ID <1386605416-19779-1-git-send-email-rjohnweber@gmail.com>
Download mbox | patch
Permalink /patch/63045/
State Changes Requested
Delegated to: Otavio Salvador
Headers show

Comments

John Weber - Dec. 9, 2013, 4:10 p.m.
From: Dan McGregor <danismostlikely@gmail.com>

Bitbake now checks for the commit in the master branch by default.
Explictly set the tag where SRCREV is expected.

Signed-off-by: John Weber <rjohnweber@gmail.com>
---
 recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fslc_2013.10.bb |    2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
Gary Thomas - Dec. 9, 2013, 4:26 p.m.
On 2013-12-09 09:10, John Weber wrote:
> From: Dan McGregor <danismostlikely@gmail.com>
>
> Bitbake now checks for the commit in the master branch by default.
> Explictly set the tag where SRCREV is expected.
>
> Signed-off-by: John Weber <rjohnweber@gmail.com>
> ---
>   recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fslc_2013.10.bb |    2 +-
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fslc_2013.10.bb b/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fslc_2013.10.bb
> index 73d4371..56c3265 100644
> --- a/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fslc_2013.10.bb
> +++ b/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fslc_2013.10.bb
> @@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ PROVIDES += "u-boot"
>   PV = "v2013.10"
>
>   SRCREV = "079e214888279518ce061c71238a74a0c3db2c28"
> -SRC_URI = "git://github.com/Freescale/u-boot-imx.git"
> +SRC_URI = "git://github.com/Freescale/u-boot-imx.git;tag=patches-2013.10"
>
>   S = "${WORKDIR}/git"
>
>


Can you please change this so the branch name can be overridden, as
in the patches I sent for the other recipes?
John Weber - Dec. 9, 2013, 4:28 p.m.
On 12/9/13 10:26 AM, Gary Thomas wrote:
> On 2013-12-09 09:10, John Weber wrote:
>> From: Dan McGregor <danismostlikely@gmail.com>
>>
>> Bitbake now checks for the commit in the master branch by default.
>> Explictly set the tag where SRCREV is expected.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: John Weber <rjohnweber@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>   recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fslc_2013.10.bb |    2 +-
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fslc_2013.10.bb 
>> b/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fslc_2013.10.bb
>> index 73d4371..56c3265 100644
>> --- a/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fslc_2013.10.bb
>> +++ b/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fslc_2013.10.bb
>> @@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ PROVIDES += "u-boot"
>>   PV = "v2013.10"
>>
>>   SRCREV = "079e214888279518ce061c71238a74a0c3db2c28"
>> -SRC_URI = "git://github.com/Freescale/u-boot-imx.git"
>> +SRC_URI = "git://github.com/Freescale/u-boot-imx.git;tag=patches-2013.10"
>>
>>   S = "${WORKDIR}/git"
>>
>>
>
>
> Can you please change this so the branch name can be overridden, as
> in the patches I sent for the other recipes?
>
Hi Gary - I'm not sure if that would be useful since the u-boot recipe does not 
depend on a .inc file.  Where would the override come from?
Gary Thomas - Dec. 9, 2013, 4:35 p.m.
On 2013-12-09 09:28, John Weber wrote:
> On 12/9/13 10:26 AM, Gary Thomas wrote:
>> On 2013-12-09 09:10, John Weber wrote:
>>> From: Dan McGregor <danismostlikely@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> Bitbake now checks for the commit in the master branch by default.
>>> Explictly set the tag where SRCREV is expected.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: John Weber <rjohnweber@gmail.com>
>>> ---
>>>   recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fslc_2013.10.bb |    2 +-
>>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fslc_2013.10.bb b/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fslc_2013.10.bb
>>> index 73d4371..56c3265 100644
>>> --- a/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fslc_2013.10.bb
>>> +++ b/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fslc_2013.10.bb
>>> @@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ PROVIDES += "u-boot"
>>>   PV = "v2013.10"
>>>
>>>   SRCREV = "079e214888279518ce061c71238a74a0c3db2c28"
>>> -SRC_URI = "git://github.com/Freescale/u-boot-imx.git"
>>> +SRC_URI = "git://github.com/Freescale/u-boot-imx.git;tag=patches-2013.10"
>>>
>>>   S = "${WORKDIR}/git"
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Can you please change this so the branch name can be overridden, as
>> in the patches I sent for the other recipes?
>>
> Hi Gary - I'm not sure if that would be useful since the u-boot recipe does not depend on a .inc file.  Where would the override come from?

 From .bbappend files in my layers (I have a private BSP layer which
extend the meta-fsl-arm* layers).
Otavio Salvador - Dec. 9, 2013, 4:35 p.m.
Hello Gary,

On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Gary Thomas <gary@mlbassoc.com> wrote:
> On 2013-12-09 09:28, John Weber wrote:
>>
>> On 12/9/13 10:26 AM, Gary Thomas wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2013-12-09 09:10, John Weber wrote:
>>>>
>>>> From: Dan McGregor <danismostlikely@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>> Bitbake now checks for the commit in the master branch by default.
>>>> Explictly set the tag where SRCREV is expected.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: John Weber <rjohnweber@gmail.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>   recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fslc_2013.10.bb |    2 +-
>>>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fslc_2013.10.bb
>>>> b/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fslc_2013.10.bb
>>>> index 73d4371..56c3265 100644
>>>> --- a/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fslc_2013.10.bb
>>>> +++ b/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fslc_2013.10.bb
>>>> @@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ PROVIDES += "u-boot"
>>>>   PV = "v2013.10"
>>>>
>>>>   SRCREV = "079e214888279518ce061c71238a74a0c3db2c28"
>>>> -SRC_URI = "git://github.com/Freescale/u-boot-imx.git"
>>>> +SRC_URI =
>>>> "git://github.com/Freescale/u-boot-imx.git;tag=patches-2013.10"
>>>>
>>>>   S = "${WORKDIR}/git"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Can you please change this so the branch name can be overridden, as
>>> in the patches I sent for the other recipes?
>>>
>> Hi Gary - I'm not sure if that would be useful since the u-boot recipe
>> does not depend on a .inc file.  Where would the override come from?
>
>
> From .bbappend files in my layers (I have a private BSP layer which
> extend the meta-fsl-arm* layers).

I think what John means is that you'll end rewriting the SRC_URI, no?

Do you have an use example where you'd need it?
John Weber - Dec. 9, 2013, 4:38 p.m.
On 12/9/13 10:35 AM, Gary Thomas wrote:
> On 2013-12-09 09:28, John Weber wrote:
>> On 12/9/13 10:26 AM, Gary Thomas wrote:
>>> On 2013-12-09 09:10, John Weber wrote:
>>>> From: Dan McGregor <danismostlikely@gmail.com>
>>>>
>>>> Bitbake now checks for the commit in the master branch by default.
>>>> Explictly set the tag where SRCREV is expected.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: John Weber <rjohnweber@gmail.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>   recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fslc_2013.10.bb |    2 +-
>>>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fslc_2013.10.bb 
>>>> b/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fslc_2013.10.bb
>>>> index 73d4371..56c3265 100644
>>>> --- a/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fslc_2013.10.bb
>>>> +++ b/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fslc_2013.10.bb
>>>> @@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ PROVIDES += "u-boot"
>>>>   PV = "v2013.10"
>>>>
>>>>   SRCREV = "079e214888279518ce061c71238a74a0c3db2c28"
>>>> -SRC_URI = "git://github.com/Freescale/u-boot-imx.git"
>>>> +SRC_URI = "git://github.com/Freescale/u-boot-imx.git;tag=patches-2013.10"
>>>>
>>>>   S = "${WORKDIR}/git"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Can you please change this so the branch name can be overridden, as
>>> in the patches I sent for the other recipes?
>>>
>> Hi Gary - I'm not sure if that would be useful since the u-boot recipe does 
>> not depend on a .inc file.  Where would the override come from?
>
> From .bbappend files in my layers (I have a private BSP layer which
> extend the meta-fsl-arm* layers).
>
Ah.  OK.  Makes sense.
John Weber - Dec. 9, 2013, 4:45 p.m.
On 12/9/13 10:35 AM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> Hello Gary,
>
> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Gary Thomas <gary@mlbassoc.com> wrote:
>> On 2013-12-09 09:28, John Weber wrote:
>>> On 12/9/13 10:26 AM, Gary Thomas wrote:
>>>> On 2013-12-09 09:10, John Weber wrote:
>>>>> From: Dan McGregor <danismostlikely@gmail.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bitbake now checks for the commit in the master branch by default.
>>>>> Explictly set the tag where SRCREV is expected.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: John Weber <rjohnweber@gmail.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>    recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fslc_2013.10.bb |    2 +-
>>>>>    1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fslc_2013.10.bb
>>>>> b/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fslc_2013.10.bb
>>>>> index 73d4371..56c3265 100644
>>>>> --- a/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fslc_2013.10.bb
>>>>> +++ b/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fslc_2013.10.bb
>>>>> @@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ PROVIDES += "u-boot"
>>>>>    PV = "v2013.10"
>>>>>
>>>>>    SRCREV = "079e214888279518ce061c71238a74a0c3db2c28"
>>>>> -SRC_URI = "git://github.com/Freescale/u-boot-imx.git"
>>>>> +SRC_URI =
>>>>> "git://github.com/Freescale/u-boot-imx.git;tag=patches-2013.10"
>>>>>
>>>>>    S = "${WORKDIR}/git"
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Can you please change this so the branch name can be overridden, as
>>>> in the patches I sent for the other recipes?
>>>>
>>> Hi Gary - I'm not sure if that would be useful since the u-boot recipe
>>> does not depend on a .inc file.  Where would the override come from?
>>
>>  From .bbappend files in my layers (I have a private BSP layer which
>> extend the meta-fsl-arm* layers).
> I think what John means is that you'll end rewriting the SRC_URI, no?
>
> Do you have an use example where you'd need it?
>
I think he means to do something like this:

GITTAG ??= "patches-2013.10"
SRC_URI = "git://github.com/Freescale/u-boot-imx.git;tag=${GITTAG}"

This way he can override GITTAG in his .bbappend, correct?
Gary Thomas - Dec. 9, 2013, 4:53 p.m.
On 2013-12-09 09:45, John Weber wrote:
>
> On 12/9/13 10:35 AM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> Hello Gary,
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Gary Thomas <gary@mlbassoc.com> wrote:
>>> On 2013-12-09 09:28, John Weber wrote:
>>>> On 12/9/13 10:26 AM, Gary Thomas wrote:
>>>>> On 2013-12-09 09:10, John Weber wrote:
>>>>>> From: Dan McGregor <danismostlikely@gmail.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bitbake now checks for the commit in the master branch by default.
>>>>>> Explictly set the tag where SRCREV is expected.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: John Weber <rjohnweber@gmail.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>    recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fslc_2013.10.bb |    2 +-
>>>>>>    1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fslc_2013.10.bb
>>>>>> b/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fslc_2013.10.bb
>>>>>> index 73d4371..56c3265 100644
>>>>>> --- a/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fslc_2013.10.bb
>>>>>> +++ b/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fslc_2013.10.bb
>>>>>> @@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ PROVIDES += "u-boot"
>>>>>>    PV = "v2013.10"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    SRCREV = "079e214888279518ce061c71238a74a0c3db2c28"
>>>>>> -SRC_URI = "git://github.com/Freescale/u-boot-imx.git"
>>>>>> +SRC_URI =
>>>>>> "git://github.com/Freescale/u-boot-imx.git;tag=patches-2013.10"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    S = "${WORKDIR}/git"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you please change this so the branch name can be overridden, as
>>>>> in the patches I sent for the other recipes?
>>>>>
>>>> Hi Gary - I'm not sure if that would be useful since the u-boot recipe
>>>> does not depend on a .inc file.  Where would the override come from?
>>>
>>>  From .bbappend files in my layers (I have a private BSP layer which
>>> extend the meta-fsl-arm* layers).
>> I think what John means is that you'll end rewriting the SRC_URI, no?
>>
>> Do you have an use example where you'd need it?
>>
> I think he means to do something like this:
>
> GITTAG ??= "patches-2013.10"
> SRC_URI = "git://github.com/Freescale/u-boot-imx.git;tag=${GITTAG}"
>
> This way he can override GITTAG in his .bbappend, correct?

Correct.  The ??= isn't even necessary since the .bbappend can
always override it.
Otavio Salvador - Dec. 9, 2013, 4:55 p.m.
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Gary Thomas <gary@mlbassoc.com> wrote:
>>> Do you have an use example where you'd need it?
>>>
>> I think he means to do something like this:
>>
>> GITTAG ??= "patches-2013.10"
>> SRC_URI = "git://github.com/Freescale/u-boot-imx.git;tag=${GITTAG}"
>>
>> This way he can override GITTAG in his .bbappend, correct?
>
> Correct.  The ??= isn't even necessary since the .bbappend can
> always override it.

In this case you're using an old version of the bootloader in your
internal BSP, right? I'd expect you to add an .bb file for this
version instead and use PREFERRED_VERSION to use it.
Gary Thomas - Dec. 9, 2013, 4:59 p.m.
On 2013-12-09 09:55, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Gary Thomas <gary@mlbassoc.com> wrote:
>>>> Do you have an use example where you'd need it?
>>>>
>>> I think he means to do something like this:
>>>
>>> GITTAG ??= "patches-2013.10"
>>> SRC_URI = "git://github.com/Freescale/u-boot-imx.git;tag=${GITTAG}"
>>>
>>> This way he can override GITTAG in his .bbappend, correct?
>>
>> Correct.  The ??= isn't even necessary since the .bbappend can
>> always override it.
>
> In this case you're using an old version of the bootloader in your
> internal BSP, right? I'd expect you to add an .bb file for this
> version instead and use PREFERRED_VERSION to use it.

Why should I do that when .bbappend works perfectly well?  I can also
see this as a case when new boards are added or old ones are still
around and they get updated on different schedules.

Also, what does it hurt to be flexible?
Otavio Salvador - Dec. 9, 2013, 5 p.m.
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Gary Thomas <gary@mlbassoc.com> wrote:
> On 2013-12-09 09:55, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Gary Thomas <gary@mlbassoc.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you have an use example where you'd need it?
>>>>>
>>>> I think he means to do something like this:
>>>>
>>>> GITTAG ??= "patches-2013.10"
>>>> SRC_URI = "git://github.com/Freescale/u-boot-imx.git;tag=${GITTAG}"
>>>>
>>>> This way he can override GITTAG in his .bbappend, correct?
>>>
>>>
>>> Correct.  The ??= isn't even necessary since the .bbappend can
>>> always override it.
>>
>>
>> In this case you're using an old version of the bootloader in your
>> internal BSP, right? I'd expect you to add an .bb file for this
>> version instead and use PREFERRED_VERSION to use it.
>
>
> Why should I do that when .bbappend works perfectly well?  I can also
> see this as a case when new boards are added or old ones are still
> around and they get updated on different schedules.
>
> Also, what does it hurt to be flexible?

In this case you'd have a 2013.10 recipe building/installing a 2013.04
version for example, this is misleading and confusing for someone
using the BSP.
John Weber - Dec. 9, 2013, 5:03 p.m.
On 12/9/13 11:00 AM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Gary Thomas <gary@mlbassoc.com> wrote:
>> On 2013-12-09 09:55, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Gary Thomas <gary@mlbassoc.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Do you have an use example where you'd need it?
>>>>>>
>>>>> I think he means to do something like this:
>>>>>
>>>>> GITTAG ??= "patches-2013.10"
>>>>> SRC_URI = "git://github.com/Freescale/u-boot-imx.git;tag=${GITTAG}"
>>>>>
>>>>> This way he can override GITTAG in his .bbappend, correct?
>>>>
>>>> Correct.  The ??= isn't even necessary since the .bbappend can
>>>> always override it.
>>>
>>> In this case you're using an old version of the bootloader in your
>>> internal BSP, right? I'd expect you to add an .bb file for this
>>> version instead and use PREFERRED_VERSION to use it.
>>
>> Why should I do that when .bbappend works perfectly well?  I can also
>> see this as a case when new boards are added or old ones are still
>> around and they get updated on different schedules.
>>
>> Also, what does it hurt to be flexible?
> In this case you'd have a 2013.10 recipe building/installing a 2013.04
> version for example, this is misleading and confusing for someone
> using the BSP.
>
I sent a v2 so that the tag is able to be overridden.  Otavio can make the call 
if he would like to take the original or the v2.  It seems to me that it might 
be good to separate the SRC_URI into a .inc file for U-boot the way it is done 
for the kernel.
Otavio Salvador - Dec. 9, 2013, 5:05 p.m.
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 3:03 PM, John Weber <rjohnweber@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/9/13 11:00 AM, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Gary Thomas <gary@mlbassoc.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2013-12-09 09:55, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Gary Thomas <gary@mlbassoc.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you have an use example where you'd need it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think he means to do something like this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> GITTAG ??= "patches-2013.10"
>>>>>> SRC_URI = "git://github.com/Freescale/u-boot-imx.git;tag=${GITTAG}"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This way he can override GITTAG in his .bbappend, correct?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Correct.  The ??= isn't even necessary since the .bbappend can
>>>>> always override it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In this case you're using an old version of the bootloader in your
>>>> internal BSP, right? I'd expect you to add an .bb file for this
>>>> version instead and use PREFERRED_VERSION to use it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Why should I do that when .bbappend works perfectly well?  I can also
>>> see this as a case when new boards are added or old ones are still
>>> around and they get updated on different schedules.
>>>
>>> Also, what does it hurt to be flexible?
>>
>> In this case you'd have a 2013.10 recipe building/installing a 2013.04
>> version for example, this is misleading and confusing for someone
>> using the BSP.
>>
> I sent a v2 so that the tag is able to be overridden.  Otavio can make the
> call if he would like to take the original or the v2.  It seems to me that
> it might be good to separate the SRC_URI into a .inc file for U-boot the way
> it is done for the kernel.

This proposed solution seem to be the cleanest one. Would you mind to
rework it this way?
Gary Thomas - Dec. 9, 2013, 5:05 p.m.
On 2013-12-09 10:00, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Gary Thomas <gary@mlbassoc.com> wrote:
>> On 2013-12-09 09:55, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Gary Thomas <gary@mlbassoc.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you have an use example where you'd need it?
>>>>>>
>>>>> I think he means to do something like this:
>>>>>
>>>>> GITTAG ??= "patches-2013.10"
>>>>> SRC_URI = "git://github.com/Freescale/u-boot-imx.git;tag=${GITTAG}"
>>>>>
>>>>> This way he can override GITTAG in his .bbappend, correct?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Correct.  The ??= isn't even necessary since the .bbappend can
>>>> always override it.
>>>
>>>
>>> In this case you're using an old version of the bootloader in your
>>> internal BSP, right? I'd expect you to add an .bb file for this
>>> version instead and use PREFERRED_VERSION to use it.
>>
>>
>> Why should I do that when .bbappend works perfectly well?  I can also
>> see this as a case when new boards are added or old ones are still
>> around and they get updated on different schedules.
>>
>> Also, what does it hurt to be flexible?
>
> In this case you'd have a 2013.10 recipe building/installing a 2013.04
> version for example, this is misleading and confusing for someone
> using the BSP.
>

You do what you want - I just hope that I don't end up having
to clone all of meta-fsl-arm* just because you fear a little
flexibility :-(
Otavio Salvador - Dec. 9, 2013, 5:10 p.m.
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Gary Thomas <gary@mlbassoc.com> wrote:
> On 2013-12-09 10:00, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Gary Thomas <gary@mlbassoc.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2013-12-09 09:55, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Gary Thomas <gary@mlbassoc.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you have an use example where you'd need it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think he means to do something like this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> GITTAG ??= "patches-2013.10"
>>>>>> SRC_URI = "git://github.com/Freescale/u-boot-imx.git;tag=${GITTAG}"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This way he can override GITTAG in his .bbappend, correct?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Correct.  The ??= isn't even necessary since the .bbappend can
>>>>> always override it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In this case you're using an old version of the bootloader in your
>>>> internal BSP, right? I'd expect you to add an .bb file for this
>>>> version instead and use PREFERRED_VERSION to use it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Why should I do that when .bbappend works perfectly well?  I can also
>>> see this as a case when new boards are added or old ones are still
>>> around and they get updated on different schedules.
>>>
>>> Also, what does it hurt to be flexible?
>>
>>
>> In this case you'd have a 2013.10 recipe building/installing a 2013.04
>> version for example, this is misleading and confusing for someone
>> using the BSP.
>>
>
> You do what you want - I just hope that I don't end up having
> to clone all of meta-fsl-arm* just because you fear a little
> flexibility :-(

I think you got me wrong.

The discussion here is to try to identify needs and try to come with
clean solution which works most people while keep it clean and simple
to understand as possible.

I think it is quite confusing when someone seems a bbappend which
changes a recipe for an old version and this does not match the recipe
name. I am fully aware this is /possible/ to do but this does not mean
this is advisable or desired.

I think that John's proposed solution is going to address both concerns well.
Gary Thomas - Dec. 9, 2013, 5:31 p.m.
On 2013-12-09 10:10, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Gary Thomas <gary@mlbassoc.com> wrote:
>> On 2013-12-09 10:00, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Gary Thomas <gary@mlbassoc.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2013-12-09 09:55, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Gary Thomas <gary@mlbassoc.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you have an use example where you'd need it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think he means to do something like this:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> GITTAG ??= "patches-2013.10"
>>>>>>> SRC_URI = "git://github.com/Freescale/u-boot-imx.git;tag=${GITTAG}"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This way he can override GITTAG in his .bbappend, correct?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Correct.  The ??= isn't even necessary since the .bbappend can
>>>>>> always override it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In this case you're using an old version of the bootloader in your
>>>>> internal BSP, right? I'd expect you to add an .bb file for this
>>>>> version instead and use PREFERRED_VERSION to use it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why should I do that when .bbappend works perfectly well?  I can also
>>>> see this as a case when new boards are added or old ones are still
>>>> around and they get updated on different schedules.
>>>>
>>>> Also, what does it hurt to be flexible?
>>>
>>>
>>> In this case you'd have a 2013.10 recipe building/installing a 2013.04
>>> version for example, this is misleading and confusing for someone
>>> using the BSP.
>>>
>>
>> You do what you want - I just hope that I don't end up having
>> to clone all of meta-fsl-arm* just because you fear a little
>> flexibility :-(
>
> I think you got me wrong.
>
> The discussion here is to try to identify needs and try to come with
> clean solution which works most people while keep it clean and simple
> to understand as possible.
>
> I think it is quite confusing when someone seems a bbappend which
> changes a recipe for an old version and this does not match the recipe
> name. I am fully aware this is /possible/ to do but this does not mean
> this is advisable or desired.
>
> I think that John's proposed solution is going to address both concerns well.
>

Here's what I want to be able to support: I'm building my
own targets (actual hardware) and I start from some version
of u-boot-fslc, linux-boundary, etc.  My local working copies
of that are based on a particular version and I want to still
use the same recipes from meta-fsl-arm* even if they are updated
for more recent versions.  This is even more important for the
kernel.  I have boards that are based on boundary-imx_3.0.35_4.0.0
but the meta-fsl-arm* recipes are now based on boundary-imx_3.0.35_4.1.0.
Note that the recipe linux-boundary_3.0.35.bb didn't change names
or even version numbers when the branch was changed. Without the ability
to override the branch in my .bbappend, I can't use the meta-fsl-arm*
recipe at all and would end up having to clone it which is really
bad/unacceptable.

I would not be using this in a way that the version being built was
different than the recipe version implied.  If, for example, meta-fsl-arm*
replaces u-boot-fslc_2013.10.bb with u-boot-fslc_2013.12.bb (and dropped
the older u-boot-fslc_2013.10.bb), just like  you I would not find it
acceptable to use .bbappend to go back to the 2013.10 branch/version.
In that case, I would clone the 2013.10 recipe into my own layer(s).
I just try to use the main layers as much as possible.
Otavio Salvador - Dec. 9, 2013, 5:58 p.m.
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 3:31 PM, Gary Thomas <gary@mlbassoc.com> wrote:
> On 2013-12-09 10:10, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Gary Thomas <gary@mlbassoc.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2013-12-09 10:00, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Gary Thomas <gary@mlbassoc.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2013-12-09 09:55, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Gary Thomas <gary@mlbassoc.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do you have an use example where you'd need it?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think he means to do something like this:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> GITTAG ??= "patches-2013.10"
>>>>>>>> SRC_URI = "git://github.com/Freescale/u-boot-imx.git;tag=${GITTAG}"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This way he can override GITTAG in his .bbappend, correct?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Correct.  The ??= isn't even necessary since the .bbappend can
>>>>>>> always override it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In this case you're using an old version of the bootloader in your
>>>>>> internal BSP, right? I'd expect you to add an .bb file for this
>>>>>> version instead and use PREFERRED_VERSION to use it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why should I do that when .bbappend works perfectly well?  I can also
>>>>> see this as a case when new boards are added or old ones are still
>>>>> around and they get updated on different schedules.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, what does it hurt to be flexible?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In this case you'd have a 2013.10 recipe building/installing a 2013.04
>>>> version for example, this is misleading and confusing for someone
>>>> using the BSP.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You do what you want - I just hope that I don't end up having
>>> to clone all of meta-fsl-arm* just because you fear a little
>>> flexibility :-(
>>
>>
>> I think you got me wrong.
>>
>> The discussion here is to try to identify needs and try to come with
>> clean solution which works most people while keep it clean and simple
>> to understand as possible.
>>
>> I think it is quite confusing when someone seems a bbappend which
>> changes a recipe for an old version and this does not match the recipe
>> name. I am fully aware this is /possible/ to do but this does not mean
>> this is advisable or desired.
>>
>> I think that John's proposed solution is going to address both concerns
>> well.
>>
>
> Here's what I want to be able to support: I'm building my
> own targets (actual hardware) and I start from some version
> of u-boot-fslc, linux-boundary, etc.  My local working copies
> of that are based on a particular version and I want to still
> use the same recipes from meta-fsl-arm* even if they are updated
> for more recent versions.  This is even more important for the
> kernel.  I have boards that are based on boundary-imx_3.0.35_4.0.0
> but the meta-fsl-arm* recipes are now based on boundary-imx_3.0.35_4.1.0.
> Note that the recipe linux-boundary_3.0.35.bb didn't change names
> or even version numbers when the branch was changed. Without the ability
> to override the branch in my .bbappend, I can't use the meta-fsl-arm*
> recipe at all and would end up having to clone it which is really
> bad/unacceptable.
>
> I would not be using this in a way that the version being built was
> different than the recipe version implied.  If, for example, meta-fsl-arm*
> replaces u-boot-fslc_2013.10.bb with u-boot-fslc_2013.12.bb (and dropped
> the older u-boot-fslc_2013.10.bb), just like  you I would not find it
> acceptable to use .bbappend to go back to the 2013.10 branch/version.
> In that case, I would clone the 2013.10 recipe into my own layer(s).
> I just try to use the main layers as much as possible.

Right but I fail to understand how changing branch will make it work
for you if you're using a repository which you cannot push...

All the rest I fully agree.

Patch

diff --git a/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fslc_2013.10.bb b/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fslc_2013.10.bb
index 73d4371..56c3265 100644
--- a/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fslc_2013.10.bb
+++ b/recipes-bsp/u-boot/u-boot-fslc_2013.10.bb
@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@  PROVIDES += "u-boot"
 PV = "v2013.10"
 
 SRCREV = "079e214888279518ce061c71238a74a0c3db2c28"
-SRC_URI = "git://github.com/Freescale/u-boot-imx.git"
+SRC_URI = "git://github.com/Freescale/u-boot-imx.git;tag=patches-2013.10"
 
 S = "${WORKDIR}/git"