2964 2012-08-17 12:51:52 +0000 DEFAULT_PREFERENCE doesn't work between layers 2012-10-26 12:54:19 +0000 1 1 7 Build System, Metadata & Runtime BitBake bitbake unspecified x86 Multiple VERIFIED NOTABUG Medium normal 1.3 M5 1 Martin.Jansa richard.purdie poky.bs.watcher poky.watcher sgw sstncr --- --- --- oldest_to_newest 24148 0 Martin.Jansa 2012-08-17 12:51:52 +0000 There is use case when newer development version is added to e.g. meta-oe with negative D_P and only users who decide to test/use that version should get it, if they define P_V for this new version. Currently it would became default version for all meta-oe users without P_V specified, which isn't very intuitive. On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 01:48:45PM +0100, Paul Eggleton wrote: > This is also undesirable for meta-oe IMHO - as a general principle, meta-oe > shouldn't be trying to both add additional recipes *and* provide newer/older > versions of recipes that are in OE-Core. Please, let's get the new versions > into OE-Core or if they're too risky/broken for some use cases for that, then > they belong in people's distro layers. (Practically I don't think there are > that many instances of new versions of OE-Core recipes that people want to use > that would be actually rejected by OE-Core). What if newer version is needed for recipe which exists only in meta-oe? I had this in meta-efl where webkit-efl was sometimes segfaulting when older stable version of libsoup2.4 was used, upstream solved that by recommending development version of libsoup2.4, but as soon as I've added it to meta-efl everybody (including users which don't use webkit-efl from meta-efl - don't need this libsoup2.4) got it as default. Yes I could have added this libsoup2.4 only to meta-shr (where I had P_V for that) and keep webkit-efl broken for everyone else, or try to add developement version of libsoup2.4 to oe-core.. 25248 1 richard.purdie 2012-09-14 12:10:56 +0000 I've given this some thought and to be honest I think this is working as designed. D_P is the weakest form of preference that can be expressed and its been clearly documented (on the mailing lists at least) that this was always its intent. As such, D_P is of lower priority than layer priority. If layer priority is equal, D_P should then come into play. So given this is behaving as deisgned, I'm going to close this as NOTABUG. 26964 2 sstncr 2012-10-26 12:54:19 +0000 Marked as verified.