Re: OE recipe tree quality

[Philip Balister <philip@balister.org>]

On 07/29/2010 05:45 AM, Koen Kooi wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 29-07-10 10:50, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Given the discussions on quality that sometimes pop up (and also triggered
>> by Robert's message), I decided to kick off a bitbake -k world.
>
> Could you first explain to me why 'bitbake world' is a good way to
> measure quality?
>
> I would think that building something like console-image and looking at
> the following would be a much better metric:
>
> * does it build?
> * are all the rootfs types working?
> * does the image do what it is supposed to do?
> * Are all the licenses of the output packages correct?
> * Do the output packages have any spurious deps?
> * Is the content of the output packages correct?
> * Are there any known CVEs in the resulting packages?
> * Did packaged-staging do its job?
> * What kind of QA errors and warnings were raised?
> * Did all recipes pass recipe_sanity?
> * Did all recipes conform to oe-stylize.py?
>
> etc
>
> I would actually advocate removing the 'world' feature from bitbake/OE
> to stop people from wasting time on looking at bitbake world and have
> them fix actual problems.

bitbake world seems to be the source of pointless listserv discussions. 
Does it serve any purpose?

Philip