From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from 93-97-173-237.zone5.bethere.co.uk ([93.97.173.237] helo=tim.rpsys.net) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SE1lZ-0000KF-Dc for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Sat, 31 Mar 2012 19:07:05 +0200 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tim.rpsys.net (8.13.6/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q2VGvxNs025042 for ; Sat, 31 Mar 2012 17:57:59 +0100 Received: from tim.rpsys.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (tim.rpsys.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 24555-04 for ; Sat, 31 Mar 2012 17:57:54 +0100 (BST) Received: from [192.168.3.10] ([192.168.3.10]) (authenticated bits=0) by tim.rpsys.net (8.13.6/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q2VGvpvh025036 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sat, 31 Mar 2012 17:57:52 +0100 Message-ID: <1333213071.18082.249.camel@ted> From: Richard Purdie To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 17:57:51 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.2- Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rpsys.net Subject: Re: why does "bitbake -e" check the license of a *non*-included recipe file? 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: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 17:07:05 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri, 2012-03-30 at 20:17 -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > goofing around with "bitbake -e" and, with a clean oe-core checkout, > both of the following work: > > $ bitbake -e > $ bitbake -e core-image-core > > now, just for fun, i added a trivial recipe file to that images/ > directory to see what kind of error message i would get if i neglected > to include a license, so i added the rday.bb recipe file (one of the > files i was using to test assignment): > > RDAY ??= "rday1" > RDAY ??= "rday2" > RDAY ?= "rday3" > > then tested: > > $ bitbake -e rday > Loading cache: 100% |######################################################################| ETA: 00:00:00 > Loaded 1106 entries from dependency cache. > ERROR: This recipe does not have the LICENSE field set (rday) | ETA: --:--:-- > ERROR: Unable to parse /home/rpjday/oe/oe-core/meta/recipes-core/images/rday.bb: Exited with "1" > ERROR: Command execution failed: Exited with 1 > > Summary: There were 3 ERROR messages shown, returning a non-zero exit code. > $ > > so that's pretty much what i expected. what i *didn't* expect was > that this would still work: > > $ bitbake -e This only parses the configuration. No recipes are parsed. > while this would now fail: > > $ bitbake -e core-image-core > Loading cache: 100% |######################################################################| ETA: 00:00:00 > Loaded 1106 entries from dependency cache. > ERROR: This recipe does not have the LICENSE field set (rday) | ETA: --:--:-- > ERROR: Unable to parse /home/rpjday/oe/oe-core/meta/recipes-core/images/rday.bb: Exited with "1" > ERROR: Command execution failed: Exited with 1 > > Summary: There were 3 ERROR messages shown, returning a non-zero exit code. > $ > > the recipe file "rday.bb" is not being included in any of the other > images, so why should its lack of a license file cause that kind of > problem? The license validity checks are at recipe parse time, not at execution time. Cheers, Richard