From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-it0-f52.google.com (mail-it0-f52.google.com [209.85.214.52]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56695782A9 for ; Fri, 26 May 2017 13:56:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-it0-f52.google.com with SMTP id g126so9282418ith.0 for ; Fri, 26 May 2017 06:56:41 -0700 (PDT) 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=9VuAzdMgq5z+tAveWbEMo/NqsepI/DPUFLvHB9d0L2k=; b=hxznBXTGg+ZWoAu6m03lscci/vx1sg8njHzZROkZgXvPID5jofbyTavkwNzrEFwNxY /HUtJL6/C58DTF39dKxVLcFiXPv1Vj0B9ekuAfvWqu8MzVcefVrGGKQxWZov3+Po2Z6o /k8gC/fHMyIE44T/nNBfsPURZf/HYnsxlWsU5iAE9VAh9hA2sFAo5qkY/BpL9DyeOl6z mrfifUovW9lqvOry1CRXX535c1wrhu+EsVyWvln6yUn18aRNA+q9gnD7uRAi6pSTX1uk 3zzE5nRgiV8HnDMZDvcvQAyprZckOfl3QwaJTSMt5FDIwKR/NS84Y2Ckt2DMP67i8+Is 058w== 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=9VuAzdMgq5z+tAveWbEMo/NqsepI/DPUFLvHB9d0L2k=; b=ilNhAo1X60Vh4ifWQz1B2LFfJvaXXtiz75QeVa0798ZUC2XQNWsH0r/jxM2Koz7skr 7PetZ1/FfgQEuZffVKV1iFMX80Zeg6z/xBXU35Sad/ZO7ASbU6wF/pfdUESyN95kLh1U RhxZR/a/sIE7Ll2UgOKtAibNxuzOBxxf5dNbDm7vpojauDdJyBNmF+2Gqul7YIg6Dydt p0phGQJPjeoUzpGXwPG/nPI4GaD2ZNAwbkI1OwiiIwb0SjMC1ULkSm+rg1ZrBLYFhXEF ZVLonv1tBjmTUQQM4X6gRymPuMDarwHFX/f6mBN49xo4WnYixcvUq0V66XJDARr8jlEc qb7Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcAdfdEeNC4ydIP0tPgHxedDhXRKxk3E+bPMayGGNGFItunyi/Ye I4n15dNXMhkYIM5u X-Received: by 10.36.23.22 with SMTP id 22mr19698492ith.78.1495807000960; Fri, 26 May 2017 06:56:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pohly-mobl1 (p5DE8F704.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [93.232.247.4]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id k79sm4425030itk.26.2017.05.26.06.56.39 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 26 May 2017 06:56:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <1495806997.16923.124.camel@intel.com> From: Patrick Ohly To: Christopher Larson Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 15:56:37 +0200 In-Reply-To: <1495742514.16923.97.camel@intel.com> References: <1495742514.16923.97.camel@intel.com> Organization: Intel GmbH, Dornacher Strasse 1, D-85622 Feldkirchen/Munich X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.9-1+b1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: "bitbake-devel@lists.openembedded.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] cooker.py: allow dangling bbappends if explicitly whitelisted X-BeenThere: bitbake-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussion that advance bitbake development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 13:56:40 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Thu, 2017-05-25 at 22:01 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote: > On Thu, 2017-05-25 at 08:50 -0700, Christopher Larson wrote: > > > > On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 3:50 AM, Patrick Ohly > > wrote: > > Having a .bbappend without corresponding .bb file triggers an > > error or > > at least warning, depending on the global > > BB_DANGLINGAPPENDS_WARNONLY. > > > > Some layers (for example, meta-freescale) avoid that message > > by only > > adding .bbappends to the BBFILES when the layers they apply to > > are > > present. Others (like intel-iot-refkit) avoid such .bbappends > > by > > falling back to global assignments with _pn- as > > override. Both > > is complicated. > > > > Now the warning code checks BBAPPENDS_DANGLING_WHITELIST and > > ignores > > all bbappends which match a file pattern in that list. This is > > an > > easier way to have bbappends which may or may not apply to an > > existing recipe. > > > > IMHO this makes it too easy to miss legitimate problems. By adding > > them only when the layers are present, you ensure that if that layer > > removes the recipe you’re appending, you’ll immediately know it. This > > hides such actual problems by suppressing for all optional appends > > across the board. > > I understand that it is a double-edged sword. It's meant for layer > maintainers who know what they are doing. If a layer maintainer prefers > to be warned about missing recipes, they can simply ignore the whitelist > feature. Layer maintainers who use it need to ensure that they have > tests in place which will fail when the bbappend is no longer used. Also note that the alternative solution currently used by layers like meta-freescale is brittle (depends on ordering of entries in bblayers.conf). This is not just a theoretic problem; there's currently a mail thread on the Yocto mailing list ("dynamic-layers") where someone had the order wrong and had to spend time on debugging the problem. -- 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.