From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-io0-f172.google.com (mail-io0-f172.google.com [209.85.223.172]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E70C373130 for ; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 15:51:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-io0-f172.google.com with SMTP id f84so32618121ioj.0 for ; Wed, 01 Mar 2017 07:51:08 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=intel-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to:references :organization:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=i9+WbbBVcq0PJEcQgHOrpNSPaaG8M9AVnyGLfPUhdJM=; b=ajgqiKTSSXP49qFkfYe3ejGIQu0LyUTlRQ8gFAGZnUX8TM2HLjcNkoLSnfVGXjX2eJ BL4eBx1TaTrP9Sgs6i1GkN9RhNoE2+IvtL7dI65gd+Jp6SgiBvSB9HztZMJdxzZIt1aX uwBjKaatsq5PRcrbMtiJfek2zLwKOnNp2YnlMn6guPuipMBq9MXoAMwzxE6mQg9WmEUb D+rAqf0AuWjte/Lp1iJir/XPk1mdJtshbbhMUczfXarrAPysMojsDhbz2xCrDdF7CIAq AjoCSnTTSuri3EHHmPG4Nfrg9/WyGjust1lfC46iy2XrJZRNt48AGHCMlMamXT/Icf3c jYLA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to :references:organization:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=i9+WbbBVcq0PJEcQgHOrpNSPaaG8M9AVnyGLfPUhdJM=; b=p+UZNxAW4kjBVrDuGcDSyRvTwf4iDEHMwyQD0bP3ya+EZQ9P/ZNApOpSBY75AFF/Vo XRIeelqS86JmfC7ioS+kCgOxxjcOWI38bKRcTxOy1ZEmFBUww5mknhCEs812JVf8RH9j UtO0frShV1cn2ogwKo6wqeEdxDxUDx8KGEJnHVL7/1UdrUfr8Z+OBrxaqe34tTBxlFNw tBGLdgDDRBrmA+4Dg87H2jTidv7Bspi9EpK4NyAnuqPUgKk0Aeub7Qw2PWO52dVkllH9 C1X8GOWCegBjBchgerm+JHJgOytOJUCitWdeuunJWwOELYDlcHCZOFDlpNI98wYL5VT1 x8CQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39lELONwmA4ibAt6+yTfZtlxjH2CgG3MwaRkHFBy2JAwm2Cm0trZbViTaXg5pZ2zoJZo X-Received: by 10.107.29.144 with SMTP id d138mr10495722iod.22.1488383467718; Wed, 01 Mar 2017 07:51:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from pohly-mobl1 (p5DE8E037.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [93.232.224.55]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f42sm2248672ioj.35.2017.03.01.07.51.05 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 01 Mar 2017 07:51:06 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <1488383463.7785.165.camel@intel.com> From: Patrick Ohly To: Richard Purdie Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2017 16:51:03 +0100 In-Reply-To: <1488381139.24526.30.camel@linuxfoundation.org> References: <1487625169-22282-1-git-send-email-anibal.limon@linux.intel.com> <1488312568.7785.73.camel@intel.com> <1488340816.24526.26.camel@linuxfoundation.org> <1488352225.7785.83.camel@intel.com> <1488381139.24526.30.camel@linuxfoundation.org> Organization: Intel GmbH, Dornacher Strasse 1, D-85622 Feldkirchen/Munich X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.9-1+b1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: yocto@yoctoproject.org, openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] yocto-compat-layer.py: Add script to YP Compatible Layer validation X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2017 15:51:07 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 2017-03-01 at 15:12 +0000, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Wed, 2017-03-01 at 08:10 +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote: > > Is the "build single distro for different machines" scenario that I > > described part of the Yocto Compliance 2.0? Should there be tests for > > it? > > Right now its not Okay, so the goal is a bit less ambitious than I had thought. I wonder whether that's useful, because at least the problems Ostro and AGL (at least as far as I understood it from lurking on their mailing list) had only happened when trying to combine multiple BSP layers *and* actually using the different machines in the same distro. > but I'd consider it. At least I'd find that useful - not sure about others ;-} > The question is can we write an > easy generic test for it, It's a bit more complicated than the existing tests, but I think it is doable. > and also clearly phrase the criteria in the > list of compliance questions with a binary yes/no answer? Does the BSP layer only modify machine-specific packages and only when the MACHINE(s) defined by the BSP layer are selected? [yes/no] The "only when" part is covered by the existing tests (because they keep MACHINE constant). The missing part is comparing different MACHINE sstamps. -- Best Regards, Patrick Ohly The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix, from userid 118) id 0BC0AE0083C; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 07:51:11 -0800 (PST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on yocto-www.yoctoproject.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-HAM-Report: * -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no * trust * [209.85.223.170 listed in list.dnswl.org] * -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] * 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily * valid * -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature * 0.5 RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM RBL: SORBS: sender is a spam source * [209.85.223.170 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] Received: from mail-io0-f170.google.com (mail-io0-f170.google.com [209.85.223.170]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE1EDE007AA for ; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 07:51:08 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-io0-f170.google.com with SMTP id f84so32618117ioj.0 for ; Wed, 01 Mar 2017 07:51:08 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=intel-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to:references :organization:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=i9+WbbBVcq0PJEcQgHOrpNSPaaG8M9AVnyGLfPUhdJM=; b=ajgqiKTSSXP49qFkfYe3ejGIQu0LyUTlRQ8gFAGZnUX8TM2HLjcNkoLSnfVGXjX2eJ BL4eBx1TaTrP9Sgs6i1GkN9RhNoE2+IvtL7dI65gd+Jp6SgiBvSB9HztZMJdxzZIt1aX uwBjKaatsq5PRcrbMtiJfek2zLwKOnNp2YnlMn6guPuipMBq9MXoAMwzxE6mQg9WmEUb D+rAqf0AuWjte/Lp1iJir/XPk1mdJtshbbhMUczfXarrAPysMojsDhbz2xCrDdF7CIAq AjoCSnTTSuri3EHHmPG4Nfrg9/WyGjust1lfC46iy2XrJZRNt48AGHCMlMamXT/Icf3c jYLA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to :references:organization:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=i9+WbbBVcq0PJEcQgHOrpNSPaaG8M9AVnyGLfPUhdJM=; b=qaJ/RYLAsvQYpjzl3/r/aNXiTsdrowa/up1N2KW+qMTPBwbA3gK932HHIkLYt3kOi4 rGYEQzlf5r6kisylp0ouwosGjK3aWBKW1LLoT+nDzbfVlNRyb3UFBD9PNWSBkq3jFJOO lrR+K29khqLLthOoPmJzdSV7vZS2x6VfhRg9DcHaVAJopIPDR/mKL6O+L0HMUumrM6EL rYMhqOOWUORw0NFLBBabrMiY2yy5KzqznuBwf1QiRT+foq8/ouCgvcLo8sk/IBWiHhIO YbsMjuRn2t+th9GsjYM8MplSyjTiFQ/JY2RIYuBicPGkhnuTC+vWJkD3qevF9lPeNWaP E9QA== X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39lte63HyWmQNazs0vhfwjhD7bSM56htdkepwh8ved6LP62j5lZWtftzpZpDkUoxDcdr X-Received: by 10.107.29.144 with SMTP id d138mr10495722iod.22.1488383467718; Wed, 01 Mar 2017 07:51:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from pohly-mobl1 (p5DE8E037.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [93.232.224.55]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f42sm2248672ioj.35.2017.03.01.07.51.05 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 01 Mar 2017 07:51:06 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <1488383463.7785.165.camel@intel.com> From: Patrick Ohly To: Richard Purdie Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2017 16:51:03 +0100 In-Reply-To: <1488381139.24526.30.camel@linuxfoundation.org> References: <1487625169-22282-1-git-send-email-anibal.limon@linux.intel.com> <1488312568.7785.73.camel@intel.com> <1488340816.24526.26.camel@linuxfoundation.org> <1488352225.7785.83.camel@intel.com> <1488381139.24526.30.camel@linuxfoundation.org> Organization: Intel GmbH, Dornacher Strasse 1, D-85622 Feldkirchen/Munich X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.9-1+b1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: yocto@yoctoproject.org, openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCHv2] yocto-compat-layer.py: Add script to YP Compatible Layer validation X-BeenThere: yocto@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of all things Yocto Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2017 15:51:11 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 2017-03-01 at 15:12 +0000, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Wed, 2017-03-01 at 08:10 +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote: > > Is the "build single distro for different machines" scenario that I > > described part of the Yocto Compliance 2.0? Should there be tests for > > it? > > Right now its not Okay, so the goal is a bit less ambitious than I had thought. I wonder whether that's useful, because at least the problems Ostro and AGL (at least as far as I understood it from lurking on their mailing list) had only happened when trying to combine multiple BSP layers *and* actually using the different machines in the same distro. > but I'd consider it. At least I'd find that useful - not sure about others ;-} > The question is can we write an > easy generic test for it, It's a bit more complicated than the existing tests, but I think it is doable. > and also clearly phrase the criteria in the > list of compliance questions with a binary yes/no answer? Does the BSP layer only modify machine-specific packages and only when the MACHINE(s) defined by the BSP layer are selected? [yes/no] The "only when" part is covered by the existing tests (because they keep MACHINE constant). The missing part is comparing different MACHINE sstamps. -- Best Regards, Patrick Ohly The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter.