From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A6B262222 for ; Fri, 31 May 2013 10:54:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 31 May 2013 03:52:42 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,778,1363158000"; d="scan'208";a="346204357" Received: from unknown (HELO helios.localnet) ([10.252.121.185]) by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 31 May 2013 03:54:48 -0700 From: Paul Eggleton To: bitbake-devel@lists.openembedded.org Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 11:54:47 +0100 Message-ID: <8305573.fN7bZe1l3B@helios> Organization: Intel Corporation User-Agent: KMail/4.10.2 (Linux/3.8.0-22-generic; KDE/4.10.2; i686; ; ) In-Reply-To: <1369985383.14887.341.camel@ted> References: <1369799698-1417-1-git-send-email-mark.hatle@windriver.com> <1369985383.14887.341.camel@ted> MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] cooker.py: Remove explicit build targets from the ignored list X-BeenThere: bitbake-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 10:54:50 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On Friday 31 May 2013 08:29:43 Richard Purdie wrote: > On Tue, 2013-05-28 at 22:54 -0500, Mark Hatle wrote: > > From: Peter Seebach > > > > If something is in ASSUMED_PROVIDED, and a user tries to build it > > explicitly, Nothing Happens. Bitbake just says it ran 0 out of 0 > > tasks. No diagnostics or explanations are offered. > > > > In practice, the right thing is probably to assume that explicit > > targets are intentional. So far as I can tell, cooker.buildTargets > > is called only from the command line or from command.py, and both > > cases seem to be explicit user actions. > > > > Signed-off-by: Peter Seebach > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Polk > > > > Rename 'status' to 'recipecache' to match recent changes. > > > > Signed-off-by: Mark Hatle > > --- > > > > lib/bb/cooker.py | 5 +++++ > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/lib/bb/cooker.py b/lib/bb/cooker.py > > index 2ae3e9d..8f0e90c 100644 > > --- a/lib/bb/cooker.py > > +++ b/lib/bb/cooker.py > > > > @@ -1067,6 +1067,11 @@ class BBCooker: > > universe = ('universe' in targets) > > targets = self.checkPackages(targets) > > > > + # Explicitly disignore things that have been requested. > > + for target in targets: > > + if target in self.recipecache.ignored_dependencies: > > + self.recipecache.ignored_dependencies.remove(target) > > + > > > > def buildTargetsIdle(server, rq, abort): > > if abort or self.state == state.stop: > > rq.finish_runqueue(True) > > I'm not sure this is the right thing to do, the reason being > determinism. I don't expect different results for X in the different > cases: > > bitbake X Y > > bitbake X > > (assuming Y is ASSUME_PROVIDED) > > For example, X will rebuild between these two commands since the sstate > and task checksums will be different between the two. This really needs > more thought to make a consistent user experience... It seems to me the most consistent behaviour would be to just report a warning that Y is in ASSUME_PROVIDED and carry on building. Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre