Re: QA Goals for OpenEmbedded

[Rolf Leggewie <no2spam@nospam.arcornews.de>]

Graeme Gregory wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 11:09:10PM +0100, Rolf Leggewie wrote:
>> XorA "solved" this in a hackish way with angsstrom.bbclass.
>>
> No he didnt and no its not a hack.

He didn't?  On August 15th last year somebody in #oe with the nick
XorA|gone claimed he did.

http://www.hentges.net/irclogs/%23oe/2009/August/20090815_oe.log?lines=500#[20090815%2015:29:59]

<XorA|gone>: it is in the end why I wrote the generic blacklist code

and the following sounded rather hackish to me

<XorA|gone>: beware it gives a crazy python dump if you use it in combo
             with bitbake -b
[...]
<Laibsch>: OK, so not yet ready to be turned by default, he?
<XorA|gone>: Laibsch: any call to skippackage with bitbake -b does that
<XorA|gone>: Laibsch: as you rip out the recipe under bitbakes nose

As I said during that IRC chat I am of the opinion that OE needs a way
to specify tuples of for example PN/PV/DISTRO/MACHINE and maybe even the
version of gcc/binutils used that bitbake should not consider in the
task queue.  If the approach taken by angstrom.bbclass provides a proper
solution here it should be turned on by default. Comments welcome.  If
we had something like this in place I see a chance to resurrect "bitbake
world" and that would help a lot with QA (not saying that everybody
needs to build world all the time, but it would provide a good test).