[PATCH] poky-tiny.conf: blacklist inappropriate image options

[PATCH] poky-tiny.conf: blacklist inappropriate image options

[Constantin Musca]

Blacklist all images that aren't core-image-minimal-*

[YOCTO #2565]

Signed-off-by: Constantin Musca <constantinx.musca@intel.com>
---
 meta-yocto/conf/distro/poky-tiny.conf | 17 +++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)

diff --git a/meta-yocto/conf/distro/poky-tiny.conf b/meta-yocto/conf/distro/poky-tiny.conf
index d40748e..121534e 100644
--- a/meta-yocto/conf/distro/poky-tiny.conf
+++ b/meta-yocto/conf/distro/poky-tiny.conf
@@ -120,3 +120,20 @@ MACHINE_ESSENTIAL_EXTRA_RDEPENDS = ""
 # will build perl in case this package is installed. Since we don't care about
 # this script for the purposes of tiny, remove the dependency from here.
 RDEPENDS_${PN}-mtrace_pn-eglibc = ""
+
+INHERIT_DISTRO += "blacklist"
+PNBLACKLIST[build-appliance-image] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
+PNBLACKLIST[core-image-base] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
+PNBLACKLIST[core-image-basic] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
+PNBLACKLIST[core-image-clutter] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
+PNBLACKLIST[core-image-gtk-directfb] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
+PNBLACKLIST[core-image-lsb] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
+PNBLACKLIST[core-image-lsb-dev] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
+PNBLACKLIST[core-image-lsb-sdk] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
+PNBLACKLIST[core-image-rt] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
+PNBLACKLIST[core-image-rt-sdk] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
+PNBLACKLIST[core-image-sato] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
+PNBLACKLIST[core-image-sato-dev] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
+PNBLACKLIST[core-image-sato-sdk] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
+PNBLACKLIST[core-image-x11] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
+PNBLACKLIST[qt4e-demo-image] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
-- 
1.7.11.7

Re: [PATCH] poky-tiny.conf: blacklist inappropriate image options

[Darren Hart]

Hi Constantin,

On 11/19/2012 04:39 AM, Constantin Musca wrote:
> Blacklist all images that aren't core-image-minimal-*
> 

This needs a description as to what the problem is and why this change
is needed. Note that the bug is here for reference, but cannot be relied
upon to provide context. That is what the git log is for.

I believe the core-image-rt image should also build, but I haven't tried
recently. trace-cmd might break that.

What sort of error is the user presented with when trying to build one
of the blacklisted images?

As I've stated in the bug, I'd be happier with an image whitelist than a
blacklist as it is hopelessly unmaintainable. Have we explored the
whitelist approach?

Finally, please remember to CC the maintainer of the files you are
modifying when that information is obvious. It is also good practice to
CC the active bugzilla commenters when available.

Thanks,

Darren

> [YOCTO #2565]
> 
> Signed-off-by: Constantin Musca <constantinx.musca@intel.com>
> ---
>  meta-yocto/conf/distro/poky-tiny.conf | 17 +++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/meta-yocto/conf/distro/poky-tiny.conf b/meta-yocto/conf/distro/poky-tiny.conf
> index d40748e..121534e 100644
> --- a/meta-yocto/conf/distro/poky-tiny.conf
> +++ b/meta-yocto/conf/distro/poky-tiny.conf
> @@ -120,3 +120,20 @@ MACHINE_ESSENTIAL_EXTRA_RDEPENDS = ""
>  # will build perl in case this package is installed. Since we don't care about
>  # this script for the purposes of tiny, remove the dependency from here.
>  RDEPENDS_${PN}-mtrace_pn-eglibc = ""
> +
> +INHERIT_DISTRO += "blacklist"
> +PNBLACKLIST[build-appliance-image] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-base] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-basic] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-clutter] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-gtk-directfb] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-lsb] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-lsb-dev] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-lsb-sdk] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-rt] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-rt-sdk] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-sato] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-sato-dev] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-sato-sdk] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-x11] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
> +PNBLACKLIST[qt4e-demo-image] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
> 

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

Re: [PATCH] poky-tiny.conf: blacklist inappropriate image options

[Constantin Musca]

On 11/21/2012 12:19 AM, Darren Hart wrote:
> Hi Constantin,
>
> On 11/19/2012 04:39 AM, Constantin Musca wrote:
>> Blacklist all images that aren't core-image-minimal-*
>>
> This needs a description as to what the problem is and why this change
> is needed. Note that the bug is here for reference, but cannot be relied
> upon to provide context. That is what the git log is for.
>
> I believe the core-image-rt image should also build, but I haven't tried
> recently. trace-cmd might break that.
>
> What sort of error is the user presented with when trying to build one
> of the blacklisted images?
>
> As I've stated in the bug, I'd be happier with an image whitelist than a
> blacklist as it is hopelessly unmaintainable. Have we explored the
> whitelist approach?
>
> Finally, please remember to CC the maintainer of the files you are
> modifying when that information is obvious. It is also good practice to
> CC the active bugzilla commenters when available.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Darren
>
>> [YOCTO #2565]
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Constantin Musca <constantinx.musca@intel.com>
>> ---
>>   meta-yocto/conf/distro/poky-tiny.conf | 17 +++++++++++++++++
>>   1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/meta-yocto/conf/distro/poky-tiny.conf b/meta-yocto/conf/distro/poky-tiny.conf
>> index d40748e..121534e 100644
>> --- a/meta-yocto/conf/distro/poky-tiny.conf
>> +++ b/meta-yocto/conf/distro/poky-tiny.conf
>> @@ -120,3 +120,20 @@ MACHINE_ESSENTIAL_EXTRA_RDEPENDS = ""
>>   # will build perl in case this package is installed. Since we don't care about
>>   # this script for the purposes of tiny, remove the dependency from here.
>>   RDEPENDS_${PN}-mtrace_pn-eglibc = ""
>> +
>> +INHERIT_DISTRO += "blacklist"
>> +PNBLACKLIST[build-appliance-image] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-base] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-basic] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-clutter] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-gtk-directfb] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-lsb] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-lsb-dev] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-lsb-sdk] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-rt] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-rt-sdk] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-sato] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-sato-dev] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-sato-sdk] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-x11] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>> +PNBLACKLIST[qt4e-demo-image] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>>
Hi Darren,

I will come back with build errors for incompatible images as soon as I 
test all the images using the poky-tiny distro. Do you agree with the 
following whitelist approach?
- create poky-tiny.bbclass in meta-yocto which will contain an anonymous 
python function for checking whether a package is a whitelisted image
- the whitelist variable (configurable from poky-tiny.conf) will be 
called TINY_IMAGE_WHITELIST


Cheers,
Constantin

Re: [PATCH] poky-tiny.conf: blacklist inappropriate image options

[Darren Hart]

On 11/21/2012 08:12 AM, Constantin Musca wrote:
> On 11/21/2012 12:19 AM, Darren Hart wrote:
>> Hi Constantin,
>>
>> On 11/19/2012 04:39 AM, Constantin Musca wrote:
>>> Blacklist all images that aren't core-image-minimal-*
>>>
>> This needs a description as to what the problem is and why this change
>> is needed. Note that the bug is here for reference, but cannot be relied
>> upon to provide context. That is what the git log is for.
>>
>> I believe the core-image-rt image should also build, but I haven't tried
>> recently. trace-cmd might break that.
>>
>> What sort of error is the user presented with when trying to build one
>> of the blacklisted images?
>>
>> As I've stated in the bug, I'd be happier with an image whitelist than a
>> blacklist as it is hopelessly unmaintainable. Have we explored the
>> whitelist approach?
>>
>> Finally, please remember to CC the maintainer of the files you are
>> modifying when that information is obvious. It is also good practice to
>> CC the active bugzilla commenters when available.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Darren
>>
>>> [YOCTO #2565]
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Constantin Musca <constantinx.musca@intel.com>
>>> ---
>>>   meta-yocto/conf/distro/poky-tiny.conf | 17 +++++++++++++++++
>>>   1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/meta-yocto/conf/distro/poky-tiny.conf b/meta-yocto/conf/distro/poky-tiny.conf
>>> index d40748e..121534e 100644
>>> --- a/meta-yocto/conf/distro/poky-tiny.conf
>>> +++ b/meta-yocto/conf/distro/poky-tiny.conf
>>> @@ -120,3 +120,20 @@ MACHINE_ESSENTIAL_EXTRA_RDEPENDS = ""
>>>   # will build perl in case this package is installed. Since we don't care about
>>>   # this script for the purposes of tiny, remove the dependency from here.
>>>   RDEPENDS_${PN}-mtrace_pn-eglibc = ""
>>> +
>>> +INHERIT_DISTRO += "blacklist"
>>> +PNBLACKLIST[build-appliance-image] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-base] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-basic] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-clutter] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-gtk-directfb] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-lsb] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-lsb-dev] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-lsb-sdk] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-rt] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-rt-sdk] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-sato] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-sato-dev] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-sato-sdk] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-x11] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>>> +PNBLACKLIST[qt4e-demo-image] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>>>
> Hi Darren,
> 
> I will come back with build errors for incompatible images as soon as I 
> test all the images using the poky-tiny distro. Do you agree with the 
> following whitelist approach?
> - create poky-tiny.bbclass in meta-yocto which will contain an anonymous 
> python function for checking whether a package is a whitelisted image
> - the whitelist variable (configurable from poky-tiny.conf) will be 
> called TINY_IMAGE_WHITELIST

I'd like to hear from Richard or Paul regarding the whitelist approach.
I don't think we should resort to something that is tiny-specific (such
as TINY_IMAGE_WHITELIST). This is something that should applicable to
any DISTRO, just as the PNBLACKLIST is.

The hard part, I think, is we only want it to apply to images, as we cannot
possibly list every package. Unfortunately, as far as I know, bitbake
doesn't really distinguish between package recipes and image recipes,
and nothing dictates that image recipes have a particular naming scheme.

Thanks,

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

Re: [PATCH] poky-tiny.conf: blacklist inappropriate image options

[Paul Eggleton]

On Wednesday 21 November 2012 09:27:43 Darren Hart wrote:
> On 11/21/2012 08:12 AM, Constantin Musca wrote:
> > On 11/21/2012 12:19 AM, Darren Hart wrote:
> >> Hi Constantin,
> >> 
> >> On 11/19/2012 04:39 AM, Constantin Musca wrote:
> >>> Blacklist all images that aren't core-image-minimal-*
> >> 
> >> This needs a description as to what the problem is and why this change
> >> is needed. Note that the bug is here for reference, but cannot be relied
> >> upon to provide context. That is what the git log is for.
> >> 
> >> I believe the core-image-rt image should also build, but I haven't tried
> >> recently. trace-cmd might break that.
> >> 
> >> What sort of error is the user presented with when trying to build one
> >> of the blacklisted images?
> >> 
> >> As I've stated in the bug, I'd be happier with an image whitelist than a
> >> blacklist as it is hopelessly unmaintainable. Have we explored the
> >> whitelist approach?
> >> 
> >> Finally, please remember to CC the maintainer of the files you are
> >> modifying when that information is obvious. It is also good practice to
> >> CC the active bugzilla commenters when available.
> >> 
> >> Thanks,
> >> 
> >> Darren
> >> 
> >>> [YOCTO #2565]
> >>> 
> >>> Signed-off-by: Constantin Musca <constantinx.musca@intel.com>
> >>> ---
> >>> 
> >>>   meta-yocto/conf/distro/poky-tiny.conf | 17 +++++++++++++++++
> >>>   1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
> >>> 
> >>> diff --git a/meta-yocto/conf/distro/poky-tiny.conf
> >>> b/meta-yocto/conf/distro/poky-tiny.conf index d40748e..121534e 100644
> >>> --- a/meta-yocto/conf/distro/poky-tiny.conf
> >>> +++ b/meta-yocto/conf/distro/poky-tiny.conf
> >>> @@ -120,3 +120,20 @@ MACHINE_ESSENTIAL_EXTRA_RDEPENDS = ""
> >>> 
> >>>   # will build perl in case this package is installed. Since we don't
> >>>   care about # this script for the purposes of tiny, remove the
> >>>   dependency from here. RDEPENDS_${PN}-mtrace_pn-eglibc = ""
> >>> 
> >>> +
> >>> +INHERIT_DISTRO += "blacklist"
> >>> +PNBLACKLIST[build-appliance-image] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
> >>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-base] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
> >>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-basic] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
> >>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-clutter] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
> >>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-gtk-directfb] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
> >>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-lsb] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
> >>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-lsb-dev] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
> >>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-lsb-sdk] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
> >>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-rt] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
> >>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-rt-sdk] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
> >>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-sato] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
> >>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-sato-dev] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
> >>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-sato-sdk] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
> >>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-x11] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
> >>> +PNBLACKLIST[qt4e-demo-image] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
> > 
> > Hi Darren,
> > 
> > I will come back with build errors for incompatible images as soon as I
> > test all the images using the poky-tiny distro. Do you agree with the
> > following whitelist approach?
> > - create poky-tiny.bbclass in meta-yocto which will contain an anonymous
> > python function for checking whether a package is a whitelisted image
> > - the whitelist variable (configurable from poky-tiny.conf) will be
> > called TINY_IMAGE_WHITELIST
> 
> I'd like to hear from Richard or Paul regarding the whitelist approach.
> I don't think we should resort to something that is tiny-specific (such
> as TINY_IMAGE_WHITELIST). This is something that should applicable to
> any DISTRO, just as the PNBLACKLIST is.

I can see what you're suggesting with the use of a whitelist here, but my 
thinking when I originally suggested the use of the blacklist was that it is a 
case of us knowing that certain recipes (and not just image recipes) won't 
build properly. If people add their own image recipes, as long as we also 
blacklist the recipes that won't build themselves (e.g. diffutils) then that 
case should be taken care of as well since they will still get a reasonable 
error upon building the image. I probably wasn't clear enough about this in 
the original discussion though.

If rather than us blacklisting each recipe, Hob was able to filter out recipes 
that depend on unbuildable recipes (because they are blacklisted, assuming we 
can do that practically) then would this alleviate some of your concern as to 
the maintainability of this solution?

> The hard part, I think, is we only want it to apply to images, as we cannot
> possibly list every package. Unfortunately, as far as I know, bitbake
> doesn't really distinguish between package recipes and image recipes,
> and nothing dictates that image recipes have a particular naming scheme.

FWIW, you can use bb.data.inherits_class() from within python code to check if 
the recipe inherits from image.bbclass, so this shouldn't be an issue if we 
need to have this check.

Cheers,
Paul

-- 

Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre

Re: [PATCH] poky-tiny.conf: blacklist inappropriate image options

[Darren Hart]

On 11/21/2012 09:44 AM, Paul Eggleton wrote:
> On Wednesday 21 November 2012 09:27:43 Darren Hart wrote:
>> On 11/21/2012 08:12 AM, Constantin Musca wrote:
>>> On 11/21/2012 12:19 AM, Darren Hart wrote:
>>>> Hi Constantin,
>>>>
>>>> On 11/19/2012 04:39 AM, Constantin Musca wrote:
>>>>> Blacklist all images that aren't core-image-minimal-*
>>>>
>>>> This needs a description as to what the problem is and why this change
>>>> is needed. Note that the bug is here for reference, but cannot be relied
>>>> upon to provide context. That is what the git log is for.
>>>>
>>>> I believe the core-image-rt image should also build, but I haven't tried
>>>> recently. trace-cmd might break that.
>>>>
>>>> What sort of error is the user presented with when trying to build one
>>>> of the blacklisted images?
>>>>
>>>> As I've stated in the bug, I'd be happier with an image whitelist than a
>>>> blacklist as it is hopelessly unmaintainable. Have we explored the
>>>> whitelist approach?
>>>>
>>>> Finally, please remember to CC the maintainer of the files you are
>>>> modifying when that information is obvious. It is also good practice to
>>>> CC the active bugzilla commenters when available.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Darren
>>>>
>>>>> [YOCTO #2565]
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Constantin Musca <constantinx.musca@intel.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>
>>>>>   meta-yocto/conf/distro/poky-tiny.conf | 17 +++++++++++++++++
>>>>>   1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/meta-yocto/conf/distro/poky-tiny.conf
>>>>> b/meta-yocto/conf/distro/poky-tiny.conf index d40748e..121534e 100644
>>>>> --- a/meta-yocto/conf/distro/poky-tiny.conf
>>>>> +++ b/meta-yocto/conf/distro/poky-tiny.conf
>>>>> @@ -120,3 +120,20 @@ MACHINE_ESSENTIAL_EXTRA_RDEPENDS = ""
>>>>>
>>>>>   # will build perl in case this package is installed. Since we don't
>>>>>   care about # this script for the purposes of tiny, remove the
>>>>>   dependency from here. RDEPENDS_${PN}-mtrace_pn-eglibc = ""
>>>>>
>>>>> +
>>>>> +INHERIT_DISTRO += "blacklist"
>>>>> +PNBLACKLIST[build-appliance-image] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>>>>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-base] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>>>>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-basic] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>>>>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-clutter] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>>>>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-gtk-directfb] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>>>>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-lsb] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>>>>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-lsb-dev] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>>>>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-lsb-sdk] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>>>>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-rt] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>>>>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-rt-sdk] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>>>>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-sato] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>>>>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-sato-dev] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>>>>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-sato-sdk] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>>>>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-x11] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>>>>> +PNBLACKLIST[qt4e-demo-image] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>>>
>>> Hi Darren,
>>>
>>> I will come back with build errors for incompatible images as soon as I
>>> test all the images using the poky-tiny distro. Do you agree with the
>>> following whitelist approach?
>>> - create poky-tiny.bbclass in meta-yocto which will contain an anonymous
>>> python function for checking whether a package is a whitelisted image
>>> - the whitelist variable (configurable from poky-tiny.conf) will be
>>> called TINY_IMAGE_WHITELIST
>>
>> I'd like to hear from Richard or Paul regarding the whitelist approach.
>> I don't think we should resort to something that is tiny-specific (such
>> as TINY_IMAGE_WHITELIST). This is something that should applicable to
>> any DISTRO, just as the PNBLACKLIST is.
> 
> I can see what you're suggesting with the use of a whitelist here, but my 
> thinking when I originally suggested the use of the blacklist was that it is a 
> case of us knowing that certain recipes (and not just image recipes) won't 
> build properly. If people add their own image recipes, as long as we also 
> blacklist the recipes that won't build themselves (e.g. diffutils) then that 
> case should be taken care of as well since they will still get a reasonable 
> error upon building the image. I probably wasn't clear enough about this in 
> the original discussion though.
> 
> If rather than us blacklisting each recipe, Hob was able to filter out recipes 
> that depend on unbuildable recipes (because they are blacklisted, assuming we 
> can do that practically) then would this alleviate some of your concern as to 
> the maintainability of this solution?


It would, thanks for clarifying Paul.

I suppose the above it fine then, and we can make it more granular with
time. If you find a package that doesn't build, just added it to the
poky-tiny blacklist.

--
Darren

> 
>> The hard part, I think, is we only want it to apply to images, as we cannot
>> possibly list every package. Unfortunately, as far as I know, bitbake
>> doesn't really distinguish between package recipes and image recipes,
>> and nothing dictates that image recipes have a particular naming scheme.
> 
> FWIW, you can use bb.data.inherits_class() from within python code to check if 
> the recipe inherits from image.bbclass, so this shouldn't be an issue if we 
> need to have this check.
> 
> Cheers,
> Paul
> 

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

Re: [PATCH] poky-tiny.conf: blacklist inappropriate image options

[Richard Purdie]

On Wed, 2012-11-21 at 11:35 -0800, Darren Hart wrote:
> 
> On 11/21/2012 09:44 AM, Paul Eggleton wrote:
> > On Wednesday 21 November 2012 09:27:43 Darren Hart wrote:
> >> On 11/21/2012 08:12 AM, Constantin Musca wrote:
> >>> On 11/21/2012 12:19 AM, Darren Hart wrote:
> >>>> Hi Constantin,
> >>>>
> >>>> On 11/19/2012 04:39 AM, Constantin Musca wrote:
> >>>>> Blacklist all images that aren't core-image-minimal-*
> >>>>
> >>>> This needs a description as to what the problem is and why this change
> >>>> is needed. Note that the bug is here for reference, but cannot be relied
> >>>> upon to provide context. That is what the git log is for.
> >>>>
> >>>> I believe the core-image-rt image should also build, but I haven't tried
> >>>> recently. trace-cmd might break that.
> >>>>
> >>>> What sort of error is the user presented with when trying to build one
> >>>> of the blacklisted images?
> >>>>
> >>>> As I've stated in the bug, I'd be happier with an image whitelist than a
> >>>> blacklist as it is hopelessly unmaintainable. Have we explored the
> >>>> whitelist approach?
> >>>>
> >>>> Finally, please remember to CC the maintainer of the files you are
> >>>> modifying when that information is obvious. It is also good practice to
> >>>> CC the active bugzilla commenters when available.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>>
> >>>> Darren
> >>>>
> >>>>> [YOCTO #2565]
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Constantin Musca <constantinx.musca@intel.com>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>>
> >>>>>   meta-yocto/conf/distro/poky-tiny.conf | 17 +++++++++++++++++
> >>>>>   1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> diff --git a/meta-yocto/conf/distro/poky-tiny.conf
> >>>>> b/meta-yocto/conf/distro/poky-tiny.conf index d40748e..121534e 100644
> >>>>> --- a/meta-yocto/conf/distro/poky-tiny.conf
> >>>>> +++ b/meta-yocto/conf/distro/poky-tiny.conf
> >>>>> @@ -120,3 +120,20 @@ MACHINE_ESSENTIAL_EXTRA_RDEPENDS = ""
> >>>>>
> >>>>>   # will build perl in case this package is installed. Since we don't
> >>>>>   care about # this script for the purposes of tiny, remove the
> >>>>>   dependency from here. RDEPENDS_${PN}-mtrace_pn-eglibc = ""
> >>>>>
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +INHERIT_DISTRO += "blacklist"
> >>>>> +PNBLACKLIST[build-appliance-image] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
> >>>>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-base] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
> >>>>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-basic] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
> >>>>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-clutter] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
> >>>>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-gtk-directfb] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
> >>>>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-lsb] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
> >>>>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-lsb-dev] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
> >>>>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-lsb-sdk] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
> >>>>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-rt] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
> >>>>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-rt-sdk] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
> >>>>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-sato] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
> >>>>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-sato-dev] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
> >>>>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-sato-sdk] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
> >>>>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-x11] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
> >>>>> +PNBLACKLIST[qt4e-demo-image] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
> >>>
> >>> Hi Darren,
> >>>
> >>> I will come back with build errors for incompatible images as soon as I
> >>> test all the images using the poky-tiny distro. Do you agree with the
> >>> following whitelist approach?
> >>> - create poky-tiny.bbclass in meta-yocto which will contain an anonymous
> >>> python function for checking whether a package is a whitelisted image
> >>> - the whitelist variable (configurable from poky-tiny.conf) will be
> >>> called TINY_IMAGE_WHITELIST
> >>
> >> I'd like to hear from Richard or Paul regarding the whitelist approach.
> >> I don't think we should resort to something that is tiny-specific (such
> >> as TINY_IMAGE_WHITELIST). This is something that should applicable to
> >> any DISTRO, just as the PNBLACKLIST is.
> > 
> > I can see what you're suggesting with the use of a whitelist here, but my 
> > thinking when I originally suggested the use of the blacklist was that it is a 
> > case of us knowing that certain recipes (and not just image recipes) won't 
> > build properly. If people add their own image recipes, as long as we also 
> > blacklist the recipes that won't build themselves (e.g. diffutils) then that 
> > case should be taken care of as well since they will still get a reasonable 
> > error upon building the image. I probably wasn't clear enough about this in 
> > the original discussion though.
> > 
> > If rather than us blacklisting each recipe, Hob was able to filter out recipes 
> > that depend on unbuildable recipes (because they are blacklisted, assuming we 
> > can do that practically) then would this alleviate some of your concern as to 
> > the maintainability of this solution?
> 
> It would, thanks for clarifying Paul.
> 
> I suppose the above it fine then, and we can make it more granular with
> time. If you find a package that doesn't build, just added it to the
> poky-tiny blacklist.

The question is whether we have the time/resources to implement this as
described above. I'm not sure bitbake can cope with realising that:

"X is broken so Y which depends on it is also broken and then Z which
depends on Y is also not buildable."

I think bitbake can figure this out as the code stands today but it will
be rather verbose about it on the console. I doubt the UI can cope with
doing this against many different image targets.

This doesn't mean I don't like the solution, just that we likely have a
resource problem so something simple working today might be a better
immediate option that the ideal solution we lack the resources to
implement right now.

Cheers,

Richard

Re: [PATCH] poky-tiny.conf: blacklist inappropriate image options

[Darren Hart]

On 11/22/2012 12:32 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-11-21 at 11:35 -0800, Darren Hart wrote:
>>
>> On 11/21/2012 09:44 AM, Paul Eggleton wrote:
>>> On Wednesday 21 November 2012 09:27:43 Darren Hart wrote:
>>>> On 11/21/2012 08:12 AM, Constantin Musca wrote:
>>>>> On 11/21/2012 12:19 AM, Darren Hart wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Constantin,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/19/2012 04:39 AM, Constantin Musca wrote:
>>>>>>> Blacklist all images that aren't core-image-minimal-*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This needs a description as to what the problem is and why this change
>>>>>> is needed. Note that the bug is here for reference, but cannot be relied
>>>>>> upon to provide context. That is what the git log is for.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I believe the core-image-rt image should also build, but I haven't tried
>>>>>> recently. trace-cmd might break that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What sort of error is the user presented with when trying to build one
>>>>>> of the blacklisted images?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As I've stated in the bug, I'd be happier with an image whitelist than a
>>>>>> blacklist as it is hopelessly unmaintainable. Have we explored the
>>>>>> whitelist approach?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Finally, please remember to CC the maintainer of the files you are
>>>>>> modifying when that information is obvious. It is also good practice to
>>>>>> CC the active bugzilla commenters when available.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Darren
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [YOCTO #2565]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Constantin Musca <constantinx.musca@intel.com>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   meta-yocto/conf/distro/poky-tiny.conf | 17 +++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>>   1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/meta-yocto/conf/distro/poky-tiny.conf
>>>>>>> b/meta-yocto/conf/distro/poky-tiny.conf index d40748e..121534e 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/meta-yocto/conf/distro/poky-tiny.conf
>>>>>>> +++ b/meta-yocto/conf/distro/poky-tiny.conf
>>>>>>> @@ -120,3 +120,20 @@ MACHINE_ESSENTIAL_EXTRA_RDEPENDS = ""
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   # will build perl in case this package is installed. Since we don't
>>>>>>>   care about # this script for the purposes of tiny, remove the
>>>>>>>   dependency from here. RDEPENDS_${PN}-mtrace_pn-eglibc = ""
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +INHERIT_DISTRO += "blacklist"
>>>>>>> +PNBLACKLIST[build-appliance-image] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>>>>>>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-base] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>>>>>>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-basic] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>>>>>>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-clutter] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>>>>>>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-gtk-directfb] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>>>>>>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-lsb] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>>>>>>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-lsb-dev] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>>>>>>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-lsb-sdk] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>>>>>>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-rt] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>>>>>>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-rt-sdk] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>>>>>>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-sato] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>>>>>>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-sato-dev] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>>>>>>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-sato-sdk] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>>>>>>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-x11] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>>>>>>> +PNBLACKLIST[qt4e-demo-image] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Darren,
>>>>>
>>>>> I will come back with build errors for incompatible images as soon as I
>>>>> test all the images using the poky-tiny distro. Do you agree with the
>>>>> following whitelist approach?
>>>>> - create poky-tiny.bbclass in meta-yocto which will contain an anonymous
>>>>> python function for checking whether a package is a whitelisted image
>>>>> - the whitelist variable (configurable from poky-tiny.conf) will be
>>>>> called TINY_IMAGE_WHITELIST
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to hear from Richard or Paul regarding the whitelist approach.
>>>> I don't think we should resort to something that is tiny-specific (such
>>>> as TINY_IMAGE_WHITELIST). This is something that should applicable to
>>>> any DISTRO, just as the PNBLACKLIST is.
>>>
>>> I can see what you're suggesting with the use of a whitelist here, but my 
>>> thinking when I originally suggested the use of the blacklist was that it is a 
>>> case of us knowing that certain recipes (and not just image recipes) won't 
>>> build properly. If people add their own image recipes, as long as we also 
>>> blacklist the recipes that won't build themselves (e.g. diffutils) then that 
>>> case should be taken care of as well since they will still get a reasonable 
>>> error upon building the image. I probably wasn't clear enough about this in 
>>> the original discussion though.
>>>
>>> If rather than us blacklisting each recipe, Hob was able to filter out recipes 
>>> that depend on unbuildable recipes (because they are blacklisted, assuming we 
>>> can do that practically) then would this alleviate some of your concern as to 
>>> the maintainability of this solution?
>>
>> It would, thanks for clarifying Paul.
>>
>> I suppose the above it fine then, and we can make it more granular with
>> time. If you find a package that doesn't build, just added it to the
>> poky-tiny blacklist.
> 
> The question is whether we have the time/resources to implement this as
> described above. I'm not sure bitbake can cope with realising that:
> 
> "X is broken so Y which depends on it is also broken and then Z which
> depends on Y is also not buildable."
> 
> I think bitbake can figure this out as the code stands today but it will
> be rather verbose about it on the console. I doubt the UI can cope with
> doing this against many different image targets.
> 
> This doesn't mean I don't like the solution, just that we likely have a
> resource problem so something simple working today might be a better
> immediate option that the ideal solution we lack the resources to
> implement right now.

Which I think is what we have agreed to right? Start off with
Constantin's original patch which blacklists the image recipes themselves.

My response to Paul about more granular control would come later, and
only if the resulting output was reasonable (which perhaps it won't be
without considerable more work as you point out).

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

Re: [PATCH] poky-tiny.conf: blacklist inappropriate image options

[Saul Wold]

On 11/19/2012 04:39 AM, Constantin Musca wrote:
> Blacklist all images that aren't core-image-minimal-*
>
> [YOCTO #2565]
>

During my testing of MUT, I found that poky-tiny would not build with 
this patch.

Please verify.

You can see the failure here:

http://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org:8010/builders/nightly-tiny/builds/357/steps/shell_43/logs/stdio

I was able to reproduce it on my desktop machine.

Sau!

> Signed-off-by: Constantin Musca <constantinx.musca@intel.com>
> ---
>   meta-yocto/conf/distro/poky-tiny.conf | 17 +++++++++++++++++
>   1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/meta-yocto/conf/distro/poky-tiny.conf b/meta-yocto/conf/distro/poky-tiny.conf
> index d40748e..121534e 100644
> --- a/meta-yocto/conf/distro/poky-tiny.conf
> +++ b/meta-yocto/conf/distro/poky-tiny.conf
> @@ -120,3 +120,20 @@ MACHINE_ESSENTIAL_EXTRA_RDEPENDS = ""
>   # will build perl in case this package is installed. Since we don't care about
>   # this script for the purposes of tiny, remove the dependency from here.
>   RDEPENDS_${PN}-mtrace_pn-eglibc = ""
> +
> +INHERIT_DISTRO += "blacklist"
> +PNBLACKLIST[build-appliance-image] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-base] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-basic] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-clutter] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-gtk-directfb] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-lsb] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-lsb-dev] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-lsb-sdk] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-rt] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-rt-sdk] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-sato] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-sato-dev] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-sato-sdk] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-x11] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
> +PNBLACKLIST[qt4e-demo-image] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>

Re: [PATCH] poky-tiny.conf: blacklist inappropriate image options

[Constantin Musca]

On 12/06/2012 07:30 AM, Saul Wold wrote:
> On 11/19/2012 04:39 AM, Constantin Musca wrote:
>> Blacklist all images that aren't core-image-minimal-*
>>
>> [YOCTO #2565]
>>
>
> During my testing of MUT, I found that poky-tiny would not build with 
> this patch.
>
> Please verify.
>
> You can see the failure here:
>
> http://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org:8010/builders/nightly-tiny/builds/357/steps/shell_43/logs/stdio 
>
>
> I was able to reproduce it on my desktop machine.
>
> Sau!
>
>> Signed-off-by: Constantin Musca <constantinx.musca@intel.com>
>> ---
>>   meta-yocto/conf/distro/poky-tiny.conf | 17 +++++++++++++++++
>>   1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/meta-yocto/conf/distro/poky-tiny.conf 
>> b/meta-yocto/conf/distro/poky-tiny.conf
>> index d40748e..121534e 100644
>> --- a/meta-yocto/conf/distro/poky-tiny.conf
>> +++ b/meta-yocto/conf/distro/poky-tiny.conf
>> @@ -120,3 +120,20 @@ MACHINE_ESSENTIAL_EXTRA_RDEPENDS = ""
>>   # will build perl in case this package is installed. Since we don't 
>> care about
>>   # this script for the purposes of tiny, remove the dependency from 
>> here.
>>   RDEPENDS_${PN}-mtrace_pn-eglibc = ""
>> +
>> +INHERIT_DISTRO += "blacklist"
>> +PNBLACKLIST[build-appliance-image] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-base] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-basic] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-clutter] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-gtk-directfb] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-lsb] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-lsb-dev] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-lsb-sdk] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-rt] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-rt-sdk] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-sato] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-sato-dev] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-sato-sdk] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>> +PNBLACKLIST[core-image-x11] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>> +PNBLACKLIST[qt4e-demo-image] = "not buildable with poky-tiny"
>>
I only tested it using hob. It seems that Hob includes it in a different 
way. The solution is to use INHERIT_DISTRO_append = " blacklist" in 
order to permit INHERIT_DISTRO ?= "debian devshell sstate license" to 
work (_append is delayed until the end of parsing). I will send patch v2.


Cheers,
Constantin