From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07520D44158 for ; Tue, 19 Nov 2024 12:56:30 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH] cooker: Drop support for BB_DANGLINGAPPENDS_WARNONLY To: bitbake-devel@lists.openembedded.org From: "Konrad Weihmann" X-Originating-Location: Berlin, Land Berlin, DE (78.55.154.173) X-Originating-Platform: Linux Chrome 130 User-Agent: GROUPS.IO Web Poster MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2024 04:56:29 -0800 References: <20241119103446.1983984-1-richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20241119103446.1983984-1-richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> Message-ID: <6663.1732020989399254787@lists.openembedded.org> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Uom28UzDQqbiOxvV9G0v" List-Id: X-Webhook-Received: from li982-79.members.linode.com [45.33.32.79] by aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org with HTTPS for ; Tue, 19 Nov 2024 12:56:30 -0000 X-Groupsio-URL: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/bitbake-devel/message/16812 --Uom28UzDQqbiOxvV9G0v Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable It might be poorly designed but it helps a lot in the following situation We have poky or any other "lower" layer providing a recipe-x_1.2.3. Then we have a layer on top doing a recipe-x_1.2.3.bbappend (to applying ba= ckported patches or configuration options or anything version specific). Now there is an update to the lower to version 1.2.4. With the removal we get a failing build, with the WARN only we get just a w= arning, version 1.2.4 is picked. Final decision if the build is good can be done in testing and/or post insp= ection. With the functionality removed I would need to add a patch to the upper lay= er with a BBMASK which then in any CI system I know would build with the older lower layer, = basically removing the entire append (which can't be right). Alternative would be to schedule two changes at the same time (updated lowe= r layer and patched upper layer). To be honest I've not seen an automated CI system that works like that, lea= ving it all with manual assembly of the inputs - requiring a ton of extra work. Another alternative would be to loosen the bbappend mask to cover all versi= on of the base recipe, but that makes it impossible (without huge efforts) to apply patches for just a= single version. All in all the functionality might have been poorly designed but very helpf= ul and I don't see BBMASK as an equivalent replacement. my 2 cents --Uom28UzDQqbiOxvV9G0v Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
It might be poorly designed but it helps a lot in the following situat= ion
We have poky or any other "lower" layer providing a recipe-x_1.2.3.Then we have a layer on top doing a recipe-x_1.2.3.bbappend (to applying= backported patches or configuration options or anything version specific).=
Now there is an update to the lower to version 1.2.4.
With the re= moval we get a failing build, with the WARN only we get just a warning, ver= sion 1.2.4 is picked.
Final decision if the build is good can be done = in testing and/or post inspection.
With the functionality removed I would need to add a patch to the uppe= r layer with a BBMASK
which then in any CI system I know would build w= ith the older lower layer, basically removing the
entire append (which= can't be right).
Alternative would be to schedule two changes at the = same time (updated lower layer and patched upper layer).
To be honest I've not seen an automated CI system that works like that= , leaving it all with
manual assembly of the inputs - requiring a ton = of extra work.
 
Another alternative would be to loosen the bbappend mask to cover all = version of the base recipe, but
that makes it impossible (without huge= efforts) to apply patches for just a single version.
All in all the functionality might have been poorly designed but very = helpful and
I don't see BBMASK as an equivalent replacement.
 
my 2 cents
--Uom28UzDQqbiOxvV9G0v--