Hi Quentin, Thanks for your reply.
On Tue, 4 Feb 2020 at 08:51, Quentin Schulz < quentin.sch...@streamunlimited.com> wrote: > Hi Ryan, > > On Mon, Feb 03, 2020 at 05:34:23PM +0000, Ryan Harkin wrote: > > Hello all, > > > > I'm looking for advice on how to support multiple kernel versions in my > > distro with minimal changes, and minimal disruption to my users. > > > > Some background: > > > > I have a legacy Sumo based distro with an image config, and a machine > > config, with the machine using a 4.9 kernel. Last year, I upgraded > > everything to Warrior, and moved to a 4.19 kernel. > > > > Some of my users who are migrating from Sumo, wish to keep their 4.9 > > kernel. So I'm trying to work out how to handle this in the simplest way. > > > > I know that I can add a 4.9 recipes to my Warrior branches, set > > PREFERRED_VERSION in my distro.conf. But I don't want to change the > default > > preferred version globally. And I don't really want users to update the > > distro.conf. Ideally, they should be able to take what I give them and > > "just" build it to get a 4.9 or 4.19 variant. > > > > You can make two machine configuration files. One with > PREFERRED_VERSION_virtual/kernel = "4.9%" and the other with 4.19. > > They pick the correct machine when building, they should expect the > correct kernel in output. Only applies to images built for this machine > so I guess that's what you're looking for? > Yes, this works. Trying it showed a few small problems. Eg. I have a package that only builds for the 4.19 kernel, and needs to be excluded for 4.9. That's something I can handle in the recipes using the machine type, of course. > > > Ideally, I don't want to *have* to build both kernels and then create two > > images. I expect that will cause confusion and lead to people flashing > the > > wrong images. So I'd prefer it to be either/or. Of course, I have to test > > all of this, so I want to be able to build both variants in CI, which > makes > > editing distro.conf even more unattractive. > > > > Same image (POV of bitbake <image>) but different machines, does that > match your requirements? > > FWIW, you can pass MACHINE= to the command line just before bitbake > <image> making it rather obvious which machine they pick. > Incidentally, that didn't work for me, but that's a symptom of how we setup the environment, where local.conf sets MACHINE. I changed it to "MACHINE ?= ", thinking it would let me override it via the shell. But it didn't. Strange, but not a big problem. I'd be interested to hear if anyone else has a different approach I could try for comparison. Thanks, Ryan.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#48274): https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/yocto/message/48274 Mute This Topic: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/mt/70952181/21656 Group Owner: yocto+ow...@lists.yoctoproject.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/yocto/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
