[OE-core] Suggested RREPLACES/RCONFLICTS for easier kernel-image upgrades

[Bryan Evenson]

Khem,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: openembedded-core-bounces at lists.openembedded.org
> [mailto:openembedded-core-bounces at lists.openembedded.org] On Behalf
> Of Khem Raj
> Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 5:17 PM
> To: openembedded-core at 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 at lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core