From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ch1outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (ch1ehsobe001.messaging.microsoft.com [216.32.181.181]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14F87E00348 for ; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 12:18:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail49-ch1-R.bigfish.com (10.43.68.248) by CH1EHSOBE016.bigfish.com (10.43.70.66) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 20:18:26 +0000 Received: from mail49-ch1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail49-ch1-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E1C110020E; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 20:18:26 +0000 (UTC) X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:160.33.194.229; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); IPV:NLI; H:usculsndmail02v.am.sony.com; RD:mail02.sonyusa.com; EFVD:NLI X-SpamScore: -4 X-BigFish: VPS-4(zzbb2dI98dI9371I1432Izz1de0h1202h1e76h1d1ah1d2ahzzz2fh2a8h668h839h93fhd25hf0ah1288h12a5h12a9h12bdh137ah13b6h1441h1504h1537h153bh162dh1631h1758h1765h1155h) Received-SPF: pass (mail49-ch1: domain of am.sony.com designates 160.33.194.229 as permitted sender) client-ip=160.33.194.229; envelope-from=tim.bird@am.sony.com; helo=usculsndmail02v.am.sony.com ; .am.sony.com ; Received: from mail49-ch1 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail49-ch1 (MessageSwitch) id 1355343505116854_18700; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 20:18:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from CH1EHSMHS005.bigfish.com (snatpool1.int.messaging.microsoft.com [10.43.68.253]) by mail49-ch1.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10798120045; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 20:18:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from usculsndmail02v.am.sony.com (160.33.194.229) by CH1EHSMHS005.bigfish.com (10.43.70.5) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 20:18:17 +0000 Received: from usculsndmail13v.am.sony.com (usculsndmail13v.am.sony.com [146.215.230.104]) by usculsndmail02v.am.sony.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2) with ESMTP id qBCKIGHp010608; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 20:18:17 GMT Received: from mail1x.sjc.in.sel.sony.com (mail4.sjc.in.sel.sony.com [43.134.1.112]) by usculsndmail13v.am.sony.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.2.2) with ESMTP id qBCKIF3R010333 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 12 Dec 2012 20:18:16 GMT Received: from [43.135.148.222] ([43.135.148.222]) by mail1x.sjc.in.sel.sony.com (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.2) with ESMTP id qBCKIF7V017839; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 20:18:15 GMT Message-ID: <50C8E703.4070206@am.sony.com> Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 12:20:19 -0800 From: Tim Bird User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Robert P. J. Day" References: <50C8DE31.6000703@am.sony.com> In-Reply-To: X-OriginatorOrg: am.sony.com Cc: Yocto discussion list Subject: Re: might it be worth explaining BBMASK more comprehensively? X-BeenThere: yocto@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of all things Yocto List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 20:18:27 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 12/12/2012 11:53 AM, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > On Wed, 12 Dec 2012, Tim Bird wrote: > >> On 12/12/2012 11:27 AM, Robert P. J. Day wrote: >>> >>> a bit more pedantry, but is there a more complete example of the use >>> of BBMASK than the trivial example in the ref and dev manuals? >>> >>> the ref manual provides this example by way of explanation: >>> >>> BBMASK = ".*/meta-ti/recipes-misc/" >>> >>> well, ok, except you occasinally find slight variations like: >>> >>> BBMASK = "meta-ti/recipes-misc/" >>> >>> or >>> >>> BBMASK = "meta-ti/recipes-misc" >>> >>> given that there are places where a trailing slash is significant, >>> are all of the above exactly equivalent? if so, that's worth noting. >>> >>> also, what about an example showing masking out a couple >>> directories, or perhaps a single recipe from a layer, and so on? at >>> the moment, the manuals suggest you can mask multiple recipes but >>> nowhere do i see the reader being given an actual example of how to do >>> that. >> >> Indeed. These would be good clarifications. The manual says that >> this is a single python regular expression. Hence, when masking multiple >> directories or recipes, you use a vertical bar to separate the regex fragments. >> >> Here's a particularly complex case I used once: >> BBMASK = "meta-ti/recipes-misc|meta-ti/recipes-ti/packagegroup" >> BBMASK .= "|.*meta-oe/recipes-support" >> #BBMASK .= "|.*openldap" >> #BBMASK .= "|.*opencv" >> #BBMASK .= "|.*lzma" >> BBMASK .= "|meta-oe/recipes-core/packagegroups" >> BBMASK .= "|meta-oe/recipes-devtools" >> BBMASK .= "|meta-oe/recipes-extended" >> BBMASK .= "|meta-oe/recipes-multimedia" >> BBMASK .= "|meta-oe/recipes-navigation" >> BBMASK .= "|meta-oe/recipes-connectivity" >> BBMASK .= "|meta-oe/recipes-graphics" >> BBMASK .= "|meta-oe/recipes-qt" >> >> I don't know if the .= with leading bar is the optimal >> way to append on to BBMASK, but it seems fairly straightforward >> to me. I sometimes use the leading ".*" and sometimes not. > > it doesn't seem like the leading ".*" makes any difference but > that's the sort of detail that might confuse a reader and should be > explained. > >> In my setup it seems to not be required, but maybe for flexibility >> it should be used. I'm not sure -- it would depend on wheter >> python re.match or re.search is used for the regex. > >> -- Tim > > from your examples above, is this how you mask individual software > recipes? > > BBMASK .= "|.*openldap" > > that's kind of useful to know. That's how I do it. I'm not sure if there's some other preferred method or not. This should catch that name in all layers. -- Tim ============================= Tim Bird Architecture Group Chair, CE Workgroup of the Linux Foundation Senior Staff Engineer, Sony Network Entertainment =============================