From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.pbcl.net ([88.198.119.4] helo=hetzner.pbcl.net) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QcfBC-0007Em-Iv for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Fri, 01 Jul 2011 16:58:50 +0200 Received: from cambridge.roku.com ([81.142.160.137] helo=[172.30.1.145]) by hetzner.pbcl.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Qcf7c-0002Ma-5K for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Fri, 01 Jul 2011 16:55:08 +0200 From: Phil Blundell To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer In-Reply-To: <4FC82E26-5A0C-48DF-99F5-7E2D9B8C7290@dominion.thruhere.net> References: <1309446689-21243-1-git-send-email-koen@dominion.thruhere.net> <201106301633.48933.paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> <4FC82E26-5A0C-48DF-99F5-7E2D9B8C7290@dominion.thruhere.net> Organization: Phil Blundell Consulting Ltd Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 15:55:06 +0100 Message-ID: <1309532106.2633.74.camel@phil-desktop> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.2 Subject: Re: [PATCH] insane bbclass: turn fatal errors back into fatal errors X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2011 14:58:50 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thu, 2011-06-30 at 17:49 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote: > It's a white list, so: > > # 0 - non dev contains .so > # 5 - .la contains installed=yes or reference to the workdir > # 7 - the desktop file is not valid > # 8 - .la contains reference to the workdir > # 9 - LDFLAGS ignored > > Are warnings and > > # 1 - package contains a dangerous RPATH > # 2 - package depends on debug package > # 3 - non dbg contains .so > # 4 - wrong architecture > # 6 - .pc contains reference to /usr/include or workdir > # 10 - Build paths in binaries > # 11 - package depends on devel package > > Are fatal errors. The splits seems arbitrary to me, but it that's how it was last year before RP disabled all fatal errors. I guess the split does make some sense as it is, although I can't see any reason for #8 not to be in the fatal set. #5 also seems like it would belong there except that, as far as I can tell, that test doesn't actually exist in the code so it's a bit academic how the results are treated. #7 is, in the scheme of things, a relatively minor infringement (and usually an upstream bug anyway) so probably oughtn't to make a package unshippable. #9 is potentially a nuisance but in most cases doesn't cause any actual problems, so again I think it's fair for this to be a warning. Incidentally, it seems that the description for #6 is a bit wrong: it doesn't actually do any checking for /usr/include. And #3 should obviously be talking about .debug not .so. p.