base.bbclass changes broke BitBake 1.8.19

base.bbclass changes broke BitBake 1.8.19

[Denys Dmytriyenko]

Chris,

The c67b95955d023c1f198531b4f06100a40b05efa7 has introduced the following 
problem with BitBake 1.8.19 and even af81d52e48cb6d4f91fff0c70e09dfd421e0057d 
didn't fix it. Any thoughts? Thanks.

Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/OE/bitbake/bin/bitbake", line 143, in <module>
    main()
  File "/OE/bitbake/bin/bitbake", line 140, in main
    cooker.cook()
  File "/OE/bitbake/lib/bb/cooker.py", line 640, in cook
Parsing .bb files, please wait...done.
NOTE: Parsing finished. 0 cached, 7152 parsed, 358 skipped, 945 masked.
    return self.buildTargets(pkgs_to_build)
  File "/OE/bitbake/lib/bb/cooker.py", line 527, in buildTargets
NOTE: build ${DISTRO_NAME} ${DISTRO_VERSION}: started
    bb.event.fire(bb.event.BuildStarted(buildname, targets, 
self.configuration.event_data))
  File "/OE/bitbake/lib/bb/event.py", line 67, in fire
    if tmpHandler(event) == Handled:
  File "tmpHandler(e)", line 10, in tmpHandler
  File "/OE/bitbake/lib/bb/__init__.py", line 100, in plain
    bb.msg.warn(''.join(args))
TypeError: warn() takes at least 2 arguments (1 given)

-- 
Denys

Re: base.bbclass changes broke BitBake 1.8.19

[Denys Dmytriyenko]

On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 05:00:41PM -0500, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> Chris,
> 
> The c67b95955d023c1f198531b4f06100a40b05efa7 has introduced the following 
> problem with BitBake 1.8.19 and even af81d52e48cb6d4f91fff0c70e09dfd421e0057d 
> didn't fix it. Any thoughts? Thanks.

As discussed on IRC, the proper fix was pushed to BitBake. Thanks!

-- 
Denys

Re: base.bbclass changes broke BitBake 1.8.19

[Chris Larson]

On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Denys Dmytriyenko <denis@denix.org> wrote:
> The c67b95955d023c1f198531b4f06100a40b05efa7 has introduced the following
> problem with BitBake 1.8.19 and even af81d52e48cb6d4f91fff0c70e09dfd421e0057d
> didn't fix it. Any thoughts? Thanks.
>

Current 1.8 branch fixes this bitbake bug.  Will get a new bugfix
release of 1.8 out soon, as well as the next 1.10 bugfix release, and
hopefully the next major release shortly after those.
-- 
Christopher Larson
clarson at kergoth dot com
Founder - BitBake, OpenEmbedded, OpenZaurus
Maintainer - Tslib
Senior Software Engineer, Mentor Graphics

Re: base.bbclass changes broke BitBake 1.8.19

[Koen Kooi]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 21-12-10 23:00, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> Chris,
> 
> The c67b95955d023c1f198531b4f06100a40b05efa7 has introduced the following 
> problem with BitBake 1.8.19 and even af81d52e48cb6d4f91fff0c70e09dfd421e0057d 
> didn't fix it. Any thoughts? Thanks.

Since the release is out, can be bump to 1.10.0 as minimum bitbake now?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFNEba9MkyGM64RGpERAj8VAJ9D4JKDw6FbfT0IxCWSJv+FLu4faQCgghae
cgSlW54GmAqIlpdAuCWzoeU=
=s+m+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: base.bbclass changes broke BitBake 1.8.19

[Chris Larson]

On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 1:28 AM, Koen Kooi <k.kooi@student.utwente.nl> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 21-12-10 23:00, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
>> Chris,
>>
>> The c67b95955d023c1f198531b4f06100a40b05efa7 has introduced the following
>> problem with BitBake 1.8.19 and even af81d52e48cb6d4f91fff0c70e09dfd421e0057d
>> didn't fix it. Any thoughts? Thanks.
>
> Since the release is out, can be bump to 1.10.0 as minimum bitbake now?

I'm all for this, personally.  The only reason the TSC didn't decide
to bump it already was the release, so I don't see any reason why not.
-- 
Christopher Larson
clarson at kergoth dot com
Founder - BitBake, OpenEmbedded, OpenZaurus
Maintainer - Tslib
Senior Software Engineer, Mentor Graphics

Re: base.bbclass changes broke BitBake 1.8.19

[Mike Westerhof]

On 12/22/2010 2:28 AM, Koen Kooi wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On 21-12-10 23:00, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
>> Chris,
>>
>> The c67b95955d023c1f198531b4f06100a40b05efa7 has introduced the following 
>> problem with BitBake 1.8.19 and even af81d52e48cb6d4f91fff0c70e09dfd421e0057d 
>> didn't fix it. Any thoughts? Thanks.
> 
> Since the release is out, can be bump to 1.10.0 as minimum bitbake now?

As one of the objectors when this was originally proposed, I think it
pertinent to note that I've (finally) managed to test SlugOS with
bitbake 1.10.1 and all's well, so +1 from me.

Thanks,
-Mike (mwester)