From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9351E0051E for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 03:03:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 15 Nov 2012 03:03:22 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.83,255,1352102400"; d="scan'208";a="242619089" Received: from unknown (HELO helios.localnet) ([10.252.122.197]) by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 15 Nov 2012 03:03:01 -0800 From: Paul Eggleton To: Bryan Evenson Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 11:03:01 +0000 Message-ID: <18536739.oUeeJqhr6W@helios> Organization: Intel Corporation User-Agent: KMail/4.9.2 (Linux/3.2.0-32-generic-pae; KDE/4.9.2; i686; ; ) In-Reply-To: <91586D499ADFD74FBCFB8425266A5DE4012C7CF328B4@pluto.melinkcorp.local> References: <91586D499ADFD74FBCFB8425266A5DE4012C7CE153F8@pluto.melinkcorp.local> <7874263.lvMpyGKaak@helios> <91586D499ADFD74FBCFB8425266A5DE4012C7CF328B4@pluto.melinkcorp.local> MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: poky@yoctoproject.org Subject: Re: Errors attempting to build AT91SAM9x5 BSP X-BeenThere: poky@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Poky build system developer discussion & patch submission for meta-yocto List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 11:03:23 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On Tuesday 13 November 2012 14:17:06 Bryan Evenson wrote: > Thanks for the information. From my reading of the BSP manual I'd thought I > was supposed to increment the LCONF_VERSION each time I made a change to > the bblayers.conf file; I appreciate the clarification. Could you suggest a change to the BSP manual that would help avoid this confusion? > I searched for the error message I was getting, and I think it was > originating in this section of sanity.bbclass: > > # Check bblayers.conf is valid > current_lconf = sanity_data.getVar('LCONF_VERSION', True) > lconf_version = sanity_data.getVar('LAYER_CONF_VERSION', True) > if current_lconf != lconf_version: > try: > bb.build.exec_func("check_bblayers_conf", sanity_data) > if sanity_data.getVar("SANITY_USE_EVENTS", True) == "1": > bb.event.fire(bb.event.SanityCheckFailed("Your > conf/bblayers.conf has been automatically updated. Please close and > re-run."), sanity_data) return > else: > bb.note("Your conf/bblayers.conf has been automatically > updated. Please re-run %s." % os.path.basename(sys.argv[0])) sys.exit(0) > except Exception: > messages = messages + "Your version of bblayers.conf was > generated from an older version of bblayers.conf.sample and there have been > updates made to this file. Please compare the two files and merge any > changes before continuing.\nMatching the version numbers will remove this > message.\n\"meld conf/bblayers.conf > ${COREBASE}/meta*/conf/bblayers.conf.sample\" is a good way to visualise > the changes.\n" Right, I guess (without having tested it recently) what I expected to happen was the check_bblayers_conf function would have raised an exception if it couldn't do anything with the file; currently it doesn't. > Would it be helpful if the current_lconf != lconf_version check changed to > have different messages when current_lconf > lconf_version and when > current_lcong < lconf_version? I think that would be a good idea, yes. Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre