From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from 93-97-173-237.zone5.bethere.co.uk ([93.97.173.237] helo=tim.rpsys.net) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QbXeX-0004eb-74 for bitbake-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 14:44:29 +0200 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tim.rpsys.net (8.13.6/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p5SCeivF023012; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 13:40:44 +0100 Received: from tim.rpsys.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (tim.rpsys.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 22990-01; Tue, 28 Jun 2011 13:40:36 +0100 (BST) Received: from [192.168.3.10] ([192.168.3.10]) (authenticated bits=0) by tim.rpsys.net (8.13.6/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p5SCdp2k022848 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 28 Jun 2011 13:39:52 +0100 From: Richard Purdie To: Paul Eggleton In-Reply-To: <201106271406.45596.paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> References: <1865303E0DED764181A9D882DEF65FB6997B5E7675@shsmsx502.ccr.corp.intel.com> <201106271406.45596.paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 13:39:37 +0100 Message-ID: <1309264777.20015.280.camel@rex> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.2 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rpsys.net Cc: bitbake-devel@lists.openembedded.org, 'Martin Jansa' Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] die if a .bbappend file matches no existing .bb recipe X-BeenThere: bitbake-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 12:44:29 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Mon, 2011-06-27 at 14:06 +0100, Paul Eggleton wrote: > Martin Jansa wrote: > > Imagine the case when you enable some layer managed by someone else > > (lets call it LS) and you're using different oe-core revision, maybe > > current HEAD and that LS wasn't updated for that or vice versa you're > > using some oe-core release version and you want to reuse some recipes > > from LS in current version. > > > > I think that big fat warning that some .bbappends does not match > > should be enough to decide if it's fatal for me (and I'll kill that > > build) or that's fine (when I'm not interested in those .bbappends > > from LS and I'm using only some other .bb files from LS). > > > > If we make it fatal then I would be forced to remove unmatched > > .bbappends from LS before build which can be difficult to share > > (unless I create own LS branch and use it in my distro). > > I see what you're saying, but I'm worried about the visiblity (or lack > thereof) of these warnings. If you start a build, go off somewhere and come > back when the build is part way through or finished, you may be oblivious to > the fact that there might be a serious problem - i.e. the customisations you > expected to be applied haven't been. > > It all depends on whether the bbappends are supposed to apply to recipes that > are to be used in the build you're doing - if they are, then IMHO the error > should be fatal. I wonder if it's practical to make it work that way...? I think it should be fatal by default but have some kind of variable we can set to disable it... Cheers, Richard