From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.geekisp.com ([216.168.135.169] helo=starfish.geekisp.com) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OeRtm-0003Sl-Os for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:07:43 +0200 Received: (qmail 20467 invoked by uid 1003); 29 Jul 2010 12:07:21 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO ?192.168.1.167?) (philip@opensdr.com@127.0.0.1) by mail.geekisp.com with SMTP; 29 Jul 2010 12:07:21 -0000 Message-ID: <4C516EF8.3080804@balister.org> Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 08:07:20 -0400 From: Philip Balister User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.10) Gecko/20100621 Fedora/3.0.5-1.fc13 Thunderbird/3.0.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org References: In-Reply-To: X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 216.168.135.169 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: philip@balister.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on discovery X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.2.5 X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:20:07 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on linuxtogo.org) Subject: Re: OE recipe tree quality X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:07:44 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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