Re: [docs] "Required Variables" aren't really "required"

[Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Fri, 2026-06-05 at 07:22 -0700, Robert P. J. Day via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Jun 2026, Antonin Godard via lists.yoctoproject.org wrote:
> 
> > On Fri Jun 5, 2026 at 1:40 PM CEST, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > > 
> > > here:
> > > 
> > > https://docs.yoctoproject.org/contributor-guide/recipe-style-guide.html#required-variables
> > > 
> > > the section "Required Variables" goes on to say that four variables
> > > "should" be included in all recipes ("should" does not equal "must"),
> > > but a quick test build showed that none of those four variables seemed
> > > to be required for successful parsing -- only a missing "LICENSE"
> > > triggered a parse error during my testing.
> > 
> > What do you suggest as an alternative word for "Required"?
> 
>   Well, it makes no sense to first say that short list of variables is
> "Required", then say they "should" be included in all recipes. It's
> common usage that "should" means only that something is *recommended*
> or *encouraged*, not mandatory.
> 
>   Then based on my testing, none of those variables are actually
> required since leaving them out didn't cause a parse error. So I don't
> know how people would want to word that or what it should say.

LICENSE is effectively required and should be in the required section.
SUMMARY/DESCRIPTION are also strongly encouraged else they get defaults
which aren't particularly useful. I thought there were QA checks for
those? Perhaps the QA tests are limited just to oe-core by default?

I think saying they're required is fine to be honest. LICENSE should be
moved to the required section.

HOMEPAGE is also strongly recommended, again. Perhaps the section
should be:

"""
The following variables should be included in all recipes:

LICENSE, DESCRIPTION, SUMMARY

It is also strongly recommended to set:

HOMEPAGE, BUGTRACKER
"""

Would that be more acceptable to you?

Cheers,

Richard