From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Petazzoni Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2020 17:27:26 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH 7/8] core/show-info: report the ordered list of build steps In-Reply-To: References: <93a3545d1fe7b47cdfb32edc7db3fd54600fecd9.1586592741.git.yann.morin.1998@free.fr> <20200411103950.4a21b23e@windsurf.home> <20200411161903.7b007feb@windsurf.home> Message-ID: <20200411172726.555e75b8@windsurf.home> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hello, On Sat, 11 Apr 2020 11:06:05 -0400 Philippe Proulx wrote: > > However, I still don't understand why your tool is not capable of > > having this knowledge about the stamp files. This is something that > > rarely changes. I think we haven't changed the stamp files since... 5 > > years? More? If your tool is in the Buildroot tree itself, it can > > simply be updated if there is ever a change in the sequencing of steps. > > Yes of course. > > I was only trying to improve Yann's solution considering your comments > about data redundancy. Sure, and your proposal makes sense if we believe we need to have this build sequencing information exposed in the JSON output. > If you tell me that things such build step order and stamp file names do > not change for many years and as such can be considered as interfaces, > I'm fine with this. I don't think we can really consider these as stable interfaces, but it is sufficiently stable to rely on it. > It's always a balance between adding the same logic to all the viewers > and generating less data. > > My tool could be part of the Buildroot project, but I doubt you'll want > something that depends on PyQt5 in there. I don't see why we couldn't have it in the tree. It's not a mandatory tool, so it's fine to have something that depends on PyQt5. > However, I could certainly contribute a Python module which offers > utilities over the `show-info` output so as to have a versioned, > object-oriented API, and then import it from an external tool. This > way, even if `show-info` changes, the Python module can continue to > offer the same (non-breaking) interface. > > I still think we somewhat need the `build_dir` entry though. Yes, for the build_dir entry, I definitely agree, it is useful and needed. Best regards, Thomas -- Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com