Khem, > -----Original Message----- > From: openembedded-core-boun...@lists.openembedded.org > [mailto:openembedded-core-boun...@lists.openembedded.org] On Behalf > Of Khem Raj > Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 5:17 PM > To: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org > Subject: Re: [OE-core] Suggested RREPLACES/RCONFLICTS for easier kernel- > image upgrades > > > > On 2/15/17 1:54 PM, Bryan Evenson wrote: > > For one project I'm using an Atmel AT91SAM9G25 processor, and I started > when support for the chip wasn't fully integrated into the mainline kernel. > As a result, I was using Atmel's Linux fork. Support has been in the mainline > kernel for a while now, so in the middle of doing other updates I plan on > switching to using one of the mainline LTS releases. I'm using the kernel > recipe in the meta-sunxi layer as an example (located here: > https://github.com/linux-sunxi/meta-sunxi/blob/master/recipes- > kernel/linux/linux_4.4.40.bb). I also plan on keeping more up to date on > releases. However, due to the package naming for the kernel images, the > RREPLACES/RCONFLICTS statements for firmware upgrade for this recipe is > getting ridiculous. I'm currently building for kernel version 4.1.38, and > here's > what I have so far to handle all previous cases: > > > > RREPLACES_kernel-image = "kernel-image (<= 4.1) kernel-image-3.6.9- > yocto-standard kernel-image-3.10.0-yocto-standard kernel-image-3.10.0- > at91" > > RCONFLICTS_kernel-image = "kernel-image (<= 4.1) kernel-image-3.6.9- > yocto-standard kernel-image-3.10.0-yocto-standard kernel-image-3.10.0- > at91" > > > > If it makes a difference, I'm using opkg for a package manager. Since the > kernel version is in the package name, I'm assuming that if I do keep going > forward and relatively up to date with LTS release, I'll have to start adding > "kernel-image-4.1.38 kernel-image-4.1.39 kernel-image 4.1.40 ...." to the > RREPLACES/RCONFLICTS so opkg will upgrade the kernel. > > > > Is there a better way to do this? I've tried using some wildcards in the > package names without any success. > > > > you can increment PE
I tried that and it didn't make a difference; without the specific previous package names listed in RDEPENDS/RCONFLICTS, opkg does not recognize the new kernel-image as an upgrade. From my understanding PE only affects the version number, not the package name. In this case, since KERNEL_VERSION is part of the package name, opkg does not immediately recognize kernel-image-4.1.38 as an upgrade for kernel-image-3.10.0-at91. Even though both packages provide "kernel-image", that's not what opkg is looking at when it checks for upgrades. Could someone explain to me why KERNEL_VERSION is even in the package name to begin with? I'm tempted to remove the following two lines from kernel.bbclass: PKG_kernel-image = "kernel-image-${@legitimize_package_name('${KERNEL_VERSION}')}" PKG_kernel-base = "kernel-${@legitimize_package_name('${KERNEL_VERSION}')}" However, I don't know if this will break something else that would cause an even bigger problem. Thanks, Bryan > > > Thanks, > > Bryan > > > -- > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-core mailing list > Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core