From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [193.201.35.47] (helo=bq8.dotserv.com) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1IuizT-0002OT-IR for openembedded-devel@openembedded.org; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 07:23:15 +0100 Received: from [192.168.2.90] (0x55532124.adsl.cybercity.dk [85.83.33.36]) by bq8.dotserv.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id lAL6Kv4t003463 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2007 07:21:02 +0100 From: Esben Haabendal To: openembedded-devel@openembedded.org In-Reply-To: <74d0deb30711200112x17ad31fej4b25840a74e05abb@mail.gmail.com> References: <20071119120819.GA17788@lenovo> <47419EA0.4030308@student.utwente.nl> <4742217C.9060506@whitby.id.au> <74d0deb30711200112x17ad31fej4b25840a74e05abb@mail.gmail.com> Organization: Dore Development ApS Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 07:20:57 +0100 Message-Id: <1195626057.11679.7.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.1 Subject: Re: Getting Started -Makefile X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 06:23:15 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tue, 2007-11-20 at 10:12 +0100, pHilipp Zabel wrote: > On Nov 20, 2007 12:51 AM, Rod Whitby wrote: > > Koen Kooi wrote: > So why not provide a simple shell wrapper instead of setup-env and the > Makefile's build-package-% part? That way, at least people would learn > the correct bitbake syntax from the beginning. > > $ cat ~/bin/bitbake > #!/bin/sh > export OEDIR=${OEDIR:-$PWD} > export BBPATH=${BBPATH:-$OEDIR/build:$OEDIR/openembedded} > /usr/local/bin/bitbake $* > > > If we can fix the underlying problem (needing to type more than one > > command to build an image with bitbake), then I will fully support a > > move to get rid of all bitbake wrappers from all the Makefiles that I > > manage. > > The question is how to fix this problem correctly. > One possibility would be that bitbake, if BBPATH is unset, issues a > warning and scans the file system (starting from the $PWD) for a > certain file (local.conf) in which BBPATH would be specified. Something like that would be nice. When bitbake finds BBPATH unset, it traverses from $PWD to / to find a .bbenv (or some other filename, but local.conf is probably not a good one), which can setup BBPATH, PYTHONPATH, OEDIR or whatever env virables is used in the conf/local.conf file. To guard against bad bitbake versions (as BBPATH is unset, bitbake can be expected to be picked up from a generic PATH) it might be smart to introduce a variable in local.conf stating specific or minimum version requirements for bitbake. Would there by any problems in extending bitbake calling convention in this way? /Esben -- Esben Haabendal Embedded Software Consultant, Dore Development ApS Phone: +45 5192 5393 Email: eha@doredevelopment.dk