Re: OE recipe tree quality

[Koen Kooi <k.kooi@student.utwente.nl>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 30-07-10 10:34, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
> 2010/7/30 Koen Kooi <k.kooi@student.utwente.nl>
> 
> On 30-07-10 09:21, Esben Haabendal wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 2:07 PM, Philip Balister <philip@balister.org>
> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 07/29/2010 05:45 AM, Koen Kooi wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -----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.
>>>>>
>>>>> bitbake world seems to be the source of pointless listserv discussions.
> Does
>>>>> it serve any purpose?
>>>>
>>>> Pointless or not really depends on how you look at quality.
>>>>
>>>> If you look at it as you, Koen and other OE long-timers, yes, it looks
>>>> rather pointless to have bitbake world.
>>>> But for those of us who have a different view on what quality is, then
>>>> bitbake world serves a purpose.
> 
> As Thomas points out, as soon as you start blacklisting things (which
> actually increases quality), bitbake world doesn't work anymore.
> 
> 
>> Blacklisting does *NOT* increase quality. It just hides the problem and as
>> such it is ostrich behaviour.

You're saying that making a choice to only support bluez4 and disallow
linking to random bluez versions does not increase quality? The bluez
people are quite clear on this, pick a version and stick with it.
So please explain to me why following upstream advice and making things
deterministic doesn't increase quality?
You seem to be implying that the bluez developers are a bunch of
ostriches for keeping the API compatible, no?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFMUpAcMkyGM64RGpERAjsTAJ4mtLOVTbW/j/YvrAUfMgJbFmKPDQCfTz9b
D9h1U+Cqg3L9yC3CheQSYr8=
=Nj6f
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----