On 18.04.2012 19:01, Koen Kooi wrote: > > Op 18 apr. 2012, om 17:46 heeft Martin Jansa het volgende geschreven: > >> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 10:21:38AM -0500, Mark Hatle wrote: >>> On 4/18/12 9:37 AM, Andreas Oberritter wrote: >>>> On 18.04.2012 14:45, Richard Purdie wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 14:08 +0200, Andreas Oberritter wrote: >>>>>> On 18.04.2012 14:00, Richard Purdie wrote: >>>>>>> On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 13:54 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote: >>>>>>>> I had a lot of those (e.g. because armv7a-vfp-neon was including 20 >>>>>>>> arm*feed.conf variants in /etc/opkg most of them empty - without >>>>>>>> Packages.gz). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So I've added "filter" to distro-feed-configs >>>>>>>> http://git.shr-project.org/git/?p=meta-smartphone.git;a=commit;h=236aa553bb0f82f741c6edb793e96f421f24f4fa >>>>>>>> to add only feeds I'm generating (and I also don't want armv5* packages >>>>>>>> installed on armv7a-vfp-neon target unless user explicitly adds armv5* >>>>>>>> feed). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is the better solution. I think we need to get a better default >>>>>>> feed-config generation mechanism into the core. Distros may still need >>>>>>> to tweak it but it would be good to share some of the best practises... >>>>>> >>>>>> Did you look at the patch? Which default setting of >>>>>> SUPPORTED_EXTRA_ARCHS do you suggest? >>>>> >>>>> I did. I didn't say the above patch was a perfect solution. >>>>> >>>>>> Do you think it's feasible to add >>>>>> every single downloadable arch to this variable? If a user of my distro >>>>>> decides to build it for some arm or x86 cpu, should he need to know >>>>>> which archs to add at this place? >>>>> >>>>> This is a place where the build system meets and interfaces with the >>>>> distro. No one policy in the build system is going to fit every distro's >>>>> needs, not should we ever aim to so. >>>> >>>> At least we should have defaults that actually work for someone. Now we >>>> don't and considering that distro-feed-configs.bb is the only place >>>> where PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS is actually used, this would be very easy to >>>> accomplish. Especially because it worked well by default before Mark >>>> broke it. >>> >>> PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS is also used by Zypper, RPM configuration and other >>> places. >>> In those cases it is a full list of all available (and compatible) package >>> architecture types. >>> >>> Coming from the RPM world, it seems very odd to me that a set of >>> "extra_archs" >>> can not list well, extra compatible archs without causing an error. I have >>> no >>> idea how to reconcile this behavior, without making a package manager >>> distro-feed specific solution. (For RPM we absolutely want the existing >>> behavior.) >> >> The problem Andreas is seeing is not fatal AFAIK.. just couple (or a >> lot) of 404 (Packages files not available) while doing opkg update is >> not nice for end user. >> >> Downloading many existing Packages files without any Package in it >> is also suboptimal, but maybe good start.. so we can teach >> meta/classes/package_ipk.bbclass:package_update_index_ipk() to create >> Packages files not only for existing >> ipkgarchs="${ALL_MULTILIB_PACKAGE_ARCHS} ${SDK_PACKAGE_ARCHS}" >> but for all (replace "if [ -e $pkgdir/ ]; then" with something like >> "if [ ! -e $pkgdir/ ]; then mkdir -p $pkgdir; fi") > > That implies you're exposing feeds straight from OE, which is a bad, bad idea.
Can you please elaborate on why this is a bad idea? Regards, Andreas _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core