Re: Help diagnosing a build failure involving ncurses, gettext, and eglibc

[Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.intel.com>]

On 11/03/2011 11:47 AM, Joshua Lock wrote:
> On 03/11/11 02:36, Jack Mitchell wrote:
>> On 03/11/2011 05:21, Darren Hart wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/02/2011 10:16 PM, McClintock Matthew-B29882 wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 12:12 AM, Darren Hart<dvhart@linux.intel.com> 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> I came up with the following to ensure I have a log of every bitbake
>>>>> command I run along with some useful stats. Feel free to use it or
>>>>> flame it:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> #!/bin/bash
>>>>> TIMESTAMP=$(date -u "+%Y%m%d%H%M%S")
>>>>> LOG=$(mktemp --suffix=".log" bb-$TIMESTAMP-XXX)
>>>>> if [ -z "$LOG" ]; then
>>>>>         echo "ERROR: failed to create log file"
>>>>>         exit 1
>>>>> fi
>>>>>
>>>>> (
>>>>>         echo "Start: $TIMESTAMP"
>>>>>         echo "========================================"
>>>>>         /usr/bin/time 2>&1 -v bitbake $@
>>>>>         echo "========================================"
>>>>>         echo "End: $(date -u '+%Y%m%d%H%M%S')"
>>>>> ) | tee $LOG
>>>>>
>>>>> echo "Logfile: $LOG"
>>>> It would be nice if we had this as a selectable option in the bitbake
>>>> wrapper somehow and it saved off logs to tmp/bitbake/logs/ or
>>>> something appropriate.
>>> I was having similar thoughts just after having pressed send :)
>>>
>>> Given how annoying it is to not have the log when you forget to capture
>>> it, I think this might actually make a reasonable default. The important
>>> bits are of course already recorded in
>>> tmp/blah/blah/blah/temp/log.blah.PID... but the above serves almost like
>>> an index into the individual files. I'm all for logging it by default -
>>> as well as collecting summary stats. I don't know if the above is the
>>> best way to go about it - but a functional equivalent would be nice.
>>>
>>> For all I know something like this already exists and I just haven't
>>> stumbled upon it yet.
>>>
>>
>> I agree, something which actually logs what you are doing and how it was
>> done rather than just the output/error logging we have at the moment
>> would be a great addition. It would make it much easier to track errors
>> and help pin down bugs - especially if you have taken a long winded
>> route to get to a particular point.
> 
> Sounds like people would find this feature useful, can someone please
> file a bug report?
> 

http://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1771

-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
Yocto Project - Linux Kernel