From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dan.rpsys.net (dan.rpsys.net [93.97.175.187]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 337586041D for ; Fri, 31 May 2013 07:30:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (dan.rpsys.net [127.0.0.1]) by dan.rpsys.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-2.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id r4V7YOeS031084; Fri, 31 May 2013 08:34:26 +0100 X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at dan.rpsys.net Received: from dan.rpsys.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (dan.rpsys.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id m4DTwEyu5o5h; Fri, 31 May 2013 08:34:24 +0100 (BST) Received: from [192.168.3.10] (rpvlan0 [192.168.3.10]) (authenticated bits=0) by dan.rpsys.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-2.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id r4V7YH8u031080 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 31 May 2013 08:34:19 +0100 Message-ID: <1369985383.14887.341.camel@ted> From: Richard Purdie To: Mark Hatle , Peter Seebach , Jeff Polk Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 08:29:43 +0100 In-Reply-To: <1369799698-1417-1-git-send-email-mark.hatle@windriver.com> References: <1369799698-1417-1-git-send-email-mark.hatle@windriver.com> X-Mailer: Evolution 3.6.4-0ubuntu1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: bitbake-devel@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] cooker.py: Remove explicit build targets from the ignored list X-BeenThere: bitbake-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 07:30:02 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tue, 2013-05-28 at 22:54 -0500, Mark Hatle wrote: > From: Peter Seebach > > If something is in ASSUMED_PROVIDED, and a user tries to build it > explicitly, Nothing Happens. Bitbake just says it ran 0 out of 0 > tasks. No diagnostics or explanations are offered. > > In practice, the right thing is probably to assume that explicit > targets are intentional. So far as I can tell, cooker.buildTargets > is called only from the command line or from command.py, and both > cases seem to be explicit user actions. > > Signed-off-by: Peter Seebach > Signed-off-by: Jeff Polk > > Rename 'status' to 'recipecache' to match recent changes. > > Signed-off-by: Mark Hatle > --- > lib/bb/cooker.py | 5 +++++ > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/lib/bb/cooker.py b/lib/bb/cooker.py > index 2ae3e9d..8f0e90c 100644 > --- a/lib/bb/cooker.py > +++ b/lib/bb/cooker.py > @@ -1067,6 +1067,11 @@ class BBCooker: > universe = ('universe' in targets) > targets = self.checkPackages(targets) > > + # Explicitly disignore things that have been requested. > + for target in targets: > + if target in self.recipecache.ignored_dependencies: > + self.recipecache.ignored_dependencies.remove(target) > + > def buildTargetsIdle(server, rq, abort): > if abort or self.state == state.stop: > rq.finish_runqueue(True) I'm not sure this is the right thing to do, the reason being determinism. I don't expect different results for X in the different cases: bitbake X Y bitbake X (assuming Y is ASSUME_PROVIDED) For example, X will rebuild between these two commands since the sstate and task checksums will be different between the two. This really needs more thought to make a consistent user experience... Cheers, Richard