From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OePgn-0007uv-JN for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Thu, 29 Jul 2010 11:46:11 +0200 Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OePgW-00021e-HQ for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Thu, 29 Jul 2010 11:45:52 +0200 Received: from s55917625.adsl.wanadoo.nl ([85.145.118.37]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 29 Jul 2010 11:45:52 +0200 Received: from k.kooi by s55917625.adsl.wanadoo.nl with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 29 Jul 2010 11:45:52 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org From: Koen Kooi Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 11:45:43 +0200 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: s55917625.adsl.wanadoo.nl User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.10) Gecko/20100611 Shredder/3.0.6pre In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 80.91.229.12 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: gcho-openembedded-devel@m.gmane.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on discovery X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.2.5 X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:20:07 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on linuxtogo.org) Subject: Re: OE recipe tree quality X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 09:46:11 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 29-07-10 10:50, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote: > Dear all, > > Given the discussions on quality that sometimes pop up (and also triggered > by Robert's message), I decided to kick off a bitbake -k world. Could you first explain to me why 'bitbake world' is a good way to measure quality? I would think that building something like console-image and looking at the following would be a much better metric: * does it build? * are all the rootfs types working? * does the image do what it is supposed to do? * Are all the licenses of the output packages correct? * Do the output packages have any spurious deps? * Is the content of the output packages correct? * Are there any known CVEs in the resulting packages? * Did packaged-staging do its job? * What kind of QA errors and warnings were raised? * Did all recipes pass recipe_sanity? * Did all recipes conform to oe-stylize.py? etc I would actually advocate removing the 'world' feature from bitbake/OE to stop people from wasting time on looking at bitbake world and have them fix actual problems. regards, Koen -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin) iD8DBQFMUU3HMkyGM64RGpERAgioAJ90DxRRG5meARUBbMcQ25jadn4k4QCeKkEd r4DWO6n6DTFhAucGqx78Yxc= =Dv4L -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----