[PATCH 0/5] Package bitbake-setup for PyPI

[PATCH 0/5] Package bitbake-setup for PyPI

[Rob Woolley]

Adding bitbake-setup to PyPI is helpful to developers who are already
comfortable with using pip in their workflow.

This series makes the necessary changes to build a wheel that may
be uploaded to PyPI.

The build sequence would be:
    git clone https://git.openembedded.org/bitbake

    python3 -m venv venv
    source venv/bin/activate

    python3 -m pip install build
    python3 -m build

This produces a wheel (.whl) file in the dist directory.  This may
be installed using pip.

Testing included "Setting Up the Environment With bitbake-setup" from
the Yocto Project manual. As well as testing the ability to build
using local configurations.

    bitbake-setup init poky-whinlatter.conf.json

For each scenario, a build of the core-image-minimal recipe was built
successfully.

Rob Woolley (5):
  gitignore: ignore Python packaging files
  bitbake-setup: Move into Python module
  bitbake-setup: Add wrapper script for bitbake_setup module
  Add Python packaging files
  bitbake-setup: Add the conditional script stanza

 .gitignore                    |    2 +
 bin/bitbake-setup             | 1108 +-------------------------------
 lib/bitbake_setup/__init__.py |    0
 lib/bitbake_setup/__main__.py | 1110 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 pyproject.toml                |    3 +
 setup.cfg                     |   40 ++
 6 files changed, 1160 insertions(+), 1103 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 lib/bitbake_setup/__init__.py
 create mode 100755 lib/bitbake_setup/__main__.py
 create mode 100644 pyproject.toml
 create mode 100644 setup.cfg

-- 
2.49.0

[PATCH 1/5] gitignore: ignore Python packaging files

[Rob Woolley]

Signed-off-by: Rob Woolley <rob.woolley@windriver.com>
---
 .gitignore | 2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore
index a6a256b2..0d8a8e23 100644
--- a/.gitignore
+++ b/.gitignore
@@ -17,3 +17,5 @@ lib/toaster/contrib/tts/backlog.txt
 lib/toaster/contrib/tts/log/*
 lib/toaster/contrib/tts/.cache/*
 lib/bb/tests/runqueue-tests/bitbake-cookerdaemon.log
+dist/
+*.egg-info/
-- 
2.49.0

[PATCH 2/5] bitbake-setup: Move into Python module

[Rob Woolley]

Create a separate Python module for bitbake_setup to be
invoked from a wrapper script.

Signed-off-by: Rob Woolley <rob.woolley@windriver.com>
---
 lib/bitbake_setup/__init__.py                      | 0
 bin/bitbake-setup => lib/bitbake_setup/__main__.py | 0
 2 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 lib/bitbake_setup/__init__.py
 rename bin/bitbake-setup => lib/bitbake_setup/__main__.py (100%)

diff --git a/lib/bitbake_setup/__init__.py b/lib/bitbake_setup/__init__.py
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..e69de29b
diff --git a/bin/bitbake-setup b/lib/bitbake_setup/__main__.py
similarity index 100%
rename from bin/bitbake-setup
rename to lib/bitbake_setup/__main__.py
-- 
2.49.0

[PATCH 3/5] bitbake-setup: Add wrapper script for bitbake_setup module

[Rob Woolley]

This wrapper script is used to support the workflow where
bitbake-setup is invoked from the bitbake git repository.

It uses the directory of the script to find the bitbake_setup
module present in the same git repository.

Signed-off-by: Rob Woolley <rob.woolley@windriver.com>
---
 bin/bitbake-setup | 11 +++++++++++
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
 create mode 100755 bin/bitbake-setup

diff --git a/bin/bitbake-setup b/bin/bitbake-setup
new file mode 100755
index 00000000..e1b1cdd1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/bin/bitbake-setup
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+#!/usr/bin/env python3
+import os
+import sys
+
+ROOT = os.path.dirname(os.path.dirname(os.path.abspath(__file__)))
+sys.path.insert(0, os.path.join(ROOT,'lib'))
+
+from bitbake_setup.__main__ import main
+
+if __name__ == "__main__":
+    main()
-- 
2.49.0

Re: [bitbake-devel] [PATCH 3/5] bitbake-setup: Add wrapper script for bitbake_setup module

[Alexander Kanavin]

On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 at 03:47, Rob Woolley via lists.openembedded.org
<rob.woolley=windriver.com@lists.openembedded.org> wrote:
>
> This wrapper script is used to support the workflow where
> bitbake-setup is invoked from the bitbake git repository.
>
> It uses the directory of the script to find the bitbake_setup
> module present in the same git repository.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rob Woolley <rob.woolley@windriver.com>
> ---
>  bin/bitbake-setup | 11 +++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100755 bin/bitbake-setup
>
> diff --git a/bin/bitbake-setup b/bin/bitbake-setup
> new file mode 100755
> index 00000000..e1b1cdd1
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/bin/bitbake-setup
> @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
> +#!/usr/bin/env python3
> +import os
> +import sys
> +
> +ROOT = os.path.dirname(os.path.dirname(os.path.abspath(__file__)))
> +sys.path.insert(0, os.path.join(ROOT,'lib'))
> +
> +from bitbake_setup.__main__ import main
> +
> +if __name__ == "__main__":
> +    main()

I'm not sure I understand the rationale for this and the previous
patch. Why do we need to convert bitbake-setup into a module, and
replace the executable with a wrapper?

Alex

[PATCH 4/5] Add Python packaging files

[Rob Woolley]

This enables creating a pip package for PyPI with:

    python3 -m build

Signed-off-by: Rob Woolley <rob.woolley@windriver.com>
---
 pyproject.toml |  3 +++
 setup.cfg      | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 43 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 pyproject.toml
 create mode 100644 setup.cfg

diff --git a/pyproject.toml b/pyproject.toml
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..4aff98bb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/pyproject.toml
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+[build-system]
+requires = ["setuptools>=61.0.0", "wheel"]
+build-backend = "setuptools.build_meta"
diff --git a/setup.cfg b/setup.cfg
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..3eaa3c49
--- /dev/null
+++ b/setup.cfg
@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+[metadata]
+name = bitbake-setup
+version = 2.16.0a1
+author = OpenEmbedded BitBake Developers
+author_email = bitbake-devel@lists.openembedded.org
+description = bitbake-setup
+long_description = file: README.md
+long_description_content_type = text/markdown
+url = https://github.com/openembedded/bitbake.git
+license = "GPL-2.0-only and MIT"
+classifiers =
+    Programming Language :: Python :: 3
+    License :: OSI Approved :: MIT License
+    License :: OSI Approved :: GNU General Public License v2 (GPLv2)
+    Operating System :: POSIX :: Linux
+
+[options]
+package_dir =
+    = lib
+packages = find:
+include_package_data = True
+zip_safe = False
+python_requires = >=3.6
+py_modules = codegen
+
+install_requires =
+    ; List any non-standard dependencies BitBake needs
+    ; BitBake is mostly self-contained, but check its documentation
+
+[options.packages.find]
+where = lib
+include =
+    bb*
+    bs4*
+    ply
+    bitbake_setup
+
+[options.entry_points]
+console_scripts =
+    bitbake-setup = bitbake_setup.__main__:main
-- 
2.49.0

Re: [bitbake-devel] [PATCH 4/5] Add Python packaging files

[Alexander Kanavin]

On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 at 03:47, Rob Woolley via lists.openembedded.org
<rob.woolley=windriver.com@lists.openembedded.org> wrote:
> +version = 2.16.0a1

There are other issues in setup.cfg, and the commit title should be:
'bitbake-setup: add pypi packaging', but before that I think we need
to consider the release strategy and version scheme for it, and get
RP's blessing :)

Here's what there is in terms of tags and branches, and from what I've
heard it is not easy to change:
https://git.openembedded.org/bitbake/

I guess, bitbake-setup would only be released from the master branch,
at least once when a new yocto release happens, at the point where
stable and master branches diverge. Those releases should match the
stable version, e.g. whinlatter release would have been 2.16.

Then the question I can't quite answer is, how to version something
from the master trunk? E.g. if we want to release from master right
now, what version would it have? Note that ideally it needs to contain
the short commit id, for traceability.

Alex

Re: [bitbake-devel] [PATCH 4/5] Add Python packaging files

[Quentin Schulz]

Hi Alex, Rob,

On 1/21/26 10:41 AM, Alexander Kanavin via lists.openembedded.org wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 at 03:47, Rob Woolley via lists.openembedded.org
> <rob.woolley=windriver.com@lists.openembedded.org> wrote:
>> +version = 2.16.0a1
> 
> There are other issues in setup.cfg, and the commit title should be:
> 'bitbake-setup: add pypi packaging', but before that I think we need
> to consider the release strategy and version scheme for it, and get
> RP's blessing :)
> 
> Here's what there is in terms of tags and branches, and from what I've
> heard it is not easy to change:
> https://git.openembedded.org/bitbake/
> 
> I guess, bitbake-setup would only be released from the master branch,
> at least once when a new yocto release happens, at the point where
> stable and master branches diverge. Those releases should match the
> stable version, e.g. whinlatter release would have been 2.16.
> 
> Then the question I can't quite answer is, how to version something
> from the master trunk? E.g. if we want to release from master right
> now, what version would it have? Note that ideally it needs to contain
> the short commit id, for traceability.
> 

setuptools_scm should be able to handle that, see 
https://setuptools-scm.readthedocs.io/en/stable/usage/#default-versioning-scheme. 
I've yet to play with it (will try with 
https://github.com/yoctoproject/bmaptool/ in the next few weeks).

Note that as far as I could tell this means all versioned files in the 
repo are part of the sdist by default (but you can exclude them via 
MANIFEST.in).

The next question is whether we're planning to upload bitbake itself to 
PyPI in the future? If so, we need to be careful about the layout. 
Building two packages from the same git repo isn't that straightforward 
if I remember correctly so if we're moving things around, better 
anticipate this possibility so we don't have to move everything around 
again once we want to publish bitbake itself.

Cheers,
Quentin

Re: [bitbake-devel] [PATCH 4/5] Add Python packaging files

[Alexander Kanavin]

On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 at 11:02, Quentin Schulz via
lists.openembedded.org
<quentin.schulz=cherry.de@lists.openembedded.org> wrote:
> The next question is whether we're planning to upload bitbake itself to
> PyPI in the future? If so, we need to be careful about the layout.
> Building two packages from the same git repo isn't that straightforward
> if I remember correctly so if we're moving things around, better
> anticipate this possibility so we don't have to move everything around
> again once we want to publish bitbake itself.

The answer to publishing bitbake itself is a firm no.

That said, bitbake-setup packaging files still shouldn't be at the top
level. There should be a script that moves them into right place
before doing the packaging step, or ideally packaging should be
pointed to use a sub-directory.

Alex

Re: [bitbake-devel] [PATCH 4/5] Add Python packaging files

[Rob Woolley]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4366 bytes --]

On Wed, Jan 21, 2026 at 5:02 AM Quentin Schulz via lists.openembedded.org
<quentin.schulz=cherry.de@lists.openembedded.org> wrote:

> On 1/21/26 10:41 AM, Alexander Kanavin via lists.openembedded.org wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 at 03:47, Rob Woolley via lists.openembedded.org
> > <rob.woolley=windriver.com@lists.openembedded.org> wrote:
> >> +version = 2.16.0a1
> >
> > There are other issues in setup.cfg, and the commit title should be:
> > 'bitbake-setup: add pypi packaging', but before that I think we need
> > to consider the release strategy and version scheme for it, and get
> > RP's blessing :)
> >
> > Here's what there is in terms of tags and branches, and from what I've
> > heard it is not easy to change:
> > https://git.openembedded.org/bitbake/
> >
> > I guess, bitbake-setup would only be released from the master branch,
> > at least once when a new yocto release happens, at the point where
> > stable and master branches diverge. Those releases should match the
> > stable version, e.g. whinlatter release would have been 2.16.
> >
> > Then the question I can't quite answer is, how to version something
> > from the master trunk? E.g. if we want to release from master right
> > now, what version would it have? Note that ideally it needs to contain
> > the short commit id, for traceability.
> >
>
> setuptools_scm should be able to handle that, see
>
> https://setuptools-scm.readthedocs.io/en/stable/usage/#default-versioning-scheme.
>
> I've yet to play with it (will try with
> https://github.com/yoctoproject/bmaptool/ in the next few weeks).
>
> Note that as far as I could tell this means all versioned files in the
> repo are part of the sdist by default (but you can exclude them via
> MANIFEST.in).
>
> The next question is whether we're planning to upload bitbake itself to
> PyPI in the future? If so, we need to be careful about the layout.
> Building two packages from the same git repo isn't that straightforward
> if I remember correctly so if we're moving things around, better
> anticipate this possibility so we don't have to move everything around
> again once we want to publish bitbake itself.
>
> Cheers,
> Quentin
>

Quick update on progress:

I have replaced nox and pytest with Python unittest so that the tests can
be invoked from bitbake-selftest. The new PyPIPackagingTest still
uses package-bitbake-setup.py to copy the files from contrib/pypi to a
staging directory.  This is needed to reorganize the layout such that
pyproject.toml is at the root with the source code in subdirectories.

I experimented with using setuptools_scm to automatically detect the
version number for creating the Python package.  Using setuptools_scm for
determining the version based on git tags conflicts with creating the
staging directory.  Whether it is outside the git repo (e.g. in TMPDIR) or
in a sub-directory (e.g. <git repo root>/packaging_workspace) it fails to
detect the latest git tag.  In the case of it being in a subdirectory, I
need to set root (e.g. root = "..")  in the tool.setuptools_scm section of
pyproject.toml for it to succeed.

If we want to use setuptools_scm with git for automatic versioning then we
will need to use a fixed (temporary) directory in the git repository (eg.
./packaging_workspace).  If a developer chooses another location for
scratch work the version will fallback to 0.0.0, which seems acceptable to
me.  I added a test in PyPIPackagingTest to check for this failure case
when doing "production" builds.

Are we okay with pinning the temporary staging directory inside the git
repository?  If so, do you have a preference as to what that directory is
called and where it is located?

The setuptools_scm uses git tags rather than branches.  We may want to
consider updating our tagging strategy if we want to use it to
automatically describe the commit for packages built on master.  One option
we have is to set tag_regex in pyproject.toml to a custom pattern.  Thus we
could create tags like bitbake-v2.16.0 or bitbake-setup-v2.16.0 to provide
a reference point for results like
bitbake-setup-2.16.1.dev0+gd2e159d85.d20260211 or something simpler like
bitbake-setup-2.16.2.dev1 (see
https://setuptools-scm.readthedocs.io/en/latest/extending/#version-number-construction
)

Regards,
Rob

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5769 bytes --]

Re: [bitbake-devel] [PATCH 4/5] Add Python packaging files

[Alexander Kanavin]

On Wed, 11 Feb 2026 at 15:41, Rob Woolley <rob.woolleywr@gmail.com> wrote:

> Are we okay with pinning the temporary staging directory inside the git repository?  If so, do you have a preference as to what that directory is called and where it is located?

I am okay and I have no particular preference. As long as it's in .gitignore.

> The setuptools_scm uses git tags rather than branches.  We may want to consider updating our tagging strategy if we want to use it to automatically describe the commit for packages built on master.  One option we have is to set tag_regex in pyproject.toml to a custom pattern.  Thus we could create tags like bitbake-v2.16.0 or bitbake-setup-v2.16.0 to provide a reference point for results like bitbake-setup-2.16.1.dev0+gd2e159d85.d20260211 or something simpler like bitbake-setup-2.16.2.dev1 (see https://setuptools-scm.readthedocs.io/en/latest/extending/#version-number-construction)

The tags available in master branch can be see with 'git tag --merged
master'. It seems that the two most suitable sets are at the end:

2024-04-scarthgap
2024-10-styhead
2025-04-walnascar
2025-04.1-walnascar
2025-10-whinlatter
...
yocto-5.0
yocto-5.1
yocto-5.2
yocto-5.2.1
yocto-5.3

So we could simply use one of these versions (they match exact release
points), and then add a .relN+hash if that can be done automatically.
And then there's no need to introduce new tag schemes or extra work
for RP. I like the one with the year and release name a bit more,
because it's more informative to the users.

Alex

Re: [bitbake-devel] [PATCH 4/5] Add Python packaging files

[Quentin Schulz]

Hi Alex,

On 2/12/26 12:38 PM, Alexander Kanavin wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2026 at 15:41, Rob Woolley <rob.woolleywr@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Are we okay with pinning the temporary staging directory inside the git repository?  If so, do you have a preference as to what that directory is called and where it is located?
> 
> I am okay and I have no particular preference. As long as it's in .gitignore.
> 
>> The setuptools_scm uses git tags rather than branches.  We may want to consider updating our tagging strategy if we want to use it to automatically describe the commit for packages built on master.  One option we have is to set tag_regex in pyproject.toml to a custom pattern.  Thus we could create tags like bitbake-v2.16.0 or bitbake-setup-v2.16.0 to provide a reference point for results like bitbake-setup-2.16.1.dev0+gd2e159d85.d20260211 or something simpler like bitbake-setup-2.16.2.dev1 (see https://setuptools-scm.readthedocs.io/en/latest/extending/#version-number-construction)
> 
> The tags available in master branch can be see with 'git tag --merged
> master'. It seems that the two most suitable sets are at the end:
> 
> 2024-04-scarthgap
> 2024-10-styhead
> 2025-04-walnascar
> 2025-04.1-walnascar
> 2025-10-whinlatter
> ...
> yocto-5.0
> yocto-5.1
> yocto-5.2
> yocto-5.2.1
> yocto-5.3
> 
> So we could simply use one of these versions (they match exact release
> points), and then add a .relN+hash if that can be done automatically.
> And then there's no need to introduce new tag schemes or extra work
> for RP. I like the one with the year and release name a bit more,
> because it's more informative to the users.
> 

Read 
https://packaging.python.org/en/latest/specifications/version-specifiers/ 
and https://peps.python.org/pep-0440/.

Specifically:

"""
Local version identifiers SHOULD NOT be used when publishing upstream 
projects to a public index server
"""

The local version is whatever's after a +. So this isn't an option.

Also, no yocto- or -<yocto-release> string possible. See 
https://packaging.python.org/en/latest/specifications/version-specifiers/#public-version-identifiers

2025-04.1 will also not be a valid public version identifier. It needs 
to be 2025.04.1.

So the only viable option would be 5.3 for example (you can strip yocto- 
automatically in versioningit for example).

Now the issue for BitBake repo is that we have the initial release tag 
on the master branch. This means that the tag is present both on master 
and 2.16 branch for example. This also means that X.Y.Z.devN may point 
to two different commits, the N-th one after X.Y.Z release in the 
release branch, or the N-th one in master. This is of course illegal on 
PyPI so we'll need to separate them.

I'm suggesting to use .devN for master and .postN for release branches. 
How to make this work with the packaging tool... I don't know.
I see that versioningit has customizable hooks so maybe that could be an 
answer on doing this manually in some way. See 
https://versioningit.readthedocs.io/en/stable/configuration.html and 
https://versioningit.readthedocs.io/en/stable/writing-methods.html

Cheers,
Quentin

Re: [bitbake-devel] [PATCH 4/5] Add Python packaging files

[Quentin Schulz]

Hi Rob,

On 1/21/26 3:47 AM, Rob Woolley via lists.openembedded.org wrote:
> This enables creating a pip package for PyPI with:
> 
>      python3 -m build
> 
> Signed-off-by: Rob Woolley <rob.woolley@windriver.com>
> ---
>   pyproject.toml |  3 +++
>   setup.cfg      | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Please migrate everything in setup.cfg into pyproject.toml, there's no 
reason to use an ancient mechanism. (This may require a more recent 
setuptools)

>   2 files changed, 43 insertions(+)
>   create mode 100644 pyproject.toml
>   create mode 100644 setup.cfg
> 
> diff --git a/pyproject.toml b/pyproject.toml
> new file mode 100644
> index 00000000..4aff98bb
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/pyproject.toml
> @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
> +[build-system]
> +requires = ["setuptools>=61.0.0", "wheel"]
> +build-backend = "setuptools.build_meta"
> diff --git a/setup.cfg b/setup.cfg
> new file mode 100644
> index 00000000..3eaa3c49
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/setup.cfg
> @@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
> +[metadata]
> +name = bitbake-setup
> +version = 2.16.0a1

100% we are going to forget updating this field. I'm wondering if we 
cannot simply use setuptools_scm to have a dynamic version?

Or use the version from lib/bb/__init__.py?

> +author = OpenEmbedded BitBake Developers
> +author_email = bitbake-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> +description = bitbake-setup
> +long_description = file: README.md
> +long_description_content_type = text/markdown
> +url = https://github.com/openembedded/bitbake.git
> +license = "GPL-2.0-only and MIT"

Must be uppercase, so AND. c.f. 
https://spdx.github.io/spdx-spec/v2.2.2/SPDX-license-expressions/#d2-case-sensitivity

> +classifiers =
> +    Programming Language :: Python :: 3
> +    License :: OSI Approved :: MIT License
> +    License :: OSI Approved :: GNU General Public License v2 (GPLv2)

This is deprecated since PEP639, c.f. 
https://peps.python.org/pep-0639/#deprecate-license-classifiers

> +    Operating System :: POSIX :: Linux
> +
> +[options]
> +package_dir =
> +    = lib
> +packages = find:
> +include_package_data = True
> +zip_safe = False
> +python_requires = >=3.6

3.9.0 as reported in __init__.py.

> +py_modules = codegen
> +
> +install_requires =
> +    ; List any non-standard dependencies BitBake needs
> +    ; BitBake is mostly self-contained, but check its documentation
> +
> +[options.packages.find]
> +where = lib
> +include =
> +    bb*

Is this meant to match both lib/bb/ and lib/bblayers/ ?

Why not explicitly list both?

> +    bs4*

What is this supposed to match except lib/bs4/?

Cheers,
Quentin

Re: [bitbake-devel] [PATCH 4/5] Add Python packaging files

[Antonin Godard]

Hi,

On Wed Jan 21, 2026 at 3:47 AM CET, Rob Woolley via lists.openembedded.org wrote:
> This enables creating a pip package for PyPI with:
>
>     python3 -m build
>
> Signed-off-by: Rob Woolley <rob.woolley@windriver.com>
> ---
>  pyproject.toml |  3 +++
>  setup.cfg      | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 43 insertions(+)
>  create mode 100644 pyproject.toml
>  create mode 100644 setup.cfg
>
> diff --git a/pyproject.toml b/pyproject.toml
> new file mode 100644
> index 00000000..4aff98bb
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/pyproject.toml
> @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
> +[build-system]
> +requires = ["setuptools>=61.0.0", "wheel"]
> +build-backend = "setuptools.build_meta"
> diff --git a/setup.cfg b/setup.cfg
> new file mode 100644
> index 00000000..3eaa3c49
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/setup.cfg
> @@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
> +[metadata]
> +name = bitbake-setup
> +version = 2.16.0a1
> +author = OpenEmbedded BitBake Developers
> +author_email = bitbake-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> +description = bitbake-setup
> +long_description = file: README.md

I don't think we have a README.md file? Perhaps
doc/bitbake-user-manual/bitbake-user-manual-environment-setup.rst would be a
better candidate here?

> +long_description_content_type = text/markdown

This would be text/x-rst then.

> +url = https://github.com/openembedded/bitbake.git

It should probably be https://git.openembedded.org/bitbake/? The github version
is supposed to be a mirror only I think.

Antonin

-- 
Antonin Godard, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com

[PATCH 5/5] bitbake-setup: Add the conditional script stanza

[Rob Woolley]

This ensures that the main function is only executed if
the module is executed in the top-level environment.

Signed-off-by: Rob Woolley <rob.woolley@windriver.com>
---
 lib/bitbake_setup/__main__.py | 3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/lib/bitbake_setup/__main__.py b/lib/bitbake_setup/__main__.py
index a69dc750..d23582dd 100755
--- a/lib/bitbake_setup/__main__.py
+++ b/lib/bitbake_setup/__main__.py
@@ -1106,4 +1106,5 @@ def main():
         from argparse import Namespace
         parser.print_help()
 
-main()
+if __name__ == '__main__':
+    main()
-- 
2.49.0

Re: [bitbake-devel] [PATCH 0/5] Package bitbake-setup for PyPI

[Alexander Kanavin]

On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 at 03:47, Rob Woolley via lists.openembedded.org
<rob.woolley=windriver.com@lists.openembedded.org> wrote:
>
> Adding bitbake-setup to PyPI is helpful to developers who are already
> comfortable with using pip in their workflow.
>
> This series makes the necessary changes to build a wheel that may
> be uploaded to PyPI.
>
> The build sequence would be:
>     git clone https://git.openembedded.org/bitbake
>
>     python3 -m venv venv
>     source venv/bin/activate
>
>     python3 -m pip install build
>     python3 -m build
> This produces a wheel (.whl) file in the dist directory.  This may
> be installed using pip.

There should be a test for producing the .whl, ideally that also
installs the resulting local .whl into a temporary location and runs
'bitbake-setup list' from that installation. Is that feasible?

The instructions to produce, publish, and install the .whl should be
in a README.

Alex