[RFC v2] package.bbclass: enable the use of package_qa_handle_error

[Saul Wold <sgw@linux.intel.com>]

This will allow the reporting of these errors as either WARNINGs (default)
or ERRORs if installed_vs_shipped is added to the ERROR_QA of the policy
file (such as a <distro_name>.conf file.

V2: found the code I had intended to send instead of that other junk,
    was just not watching what I pushed on that one, sorry. (this is edit in
    no in the actual commit message)

Signed-off-by: Saul Wold <sgw@linux.intel.com>
---
 meta/classes/package.bbclass |   11 ++++++++---
 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/meta/classes/package.bbclass b/meta/classes/package.bbclass
index 0b98c6b..ff2ec96 100644
--- a/meta/classes/package.bbclass
+++ b/meta/classes/package.bbclass
@@ -988,9 +988,14 @@ python populate_packages () {
 				unshipped.append(path)
 
 	if unshipped != []:
-		bb.warn("For recipe %s, the following files/directories were installed but not shipped in any package:" % pn)
-		for f in unshipped:
-			bb.warn("  " + f)
+		msg = pn + ": Files/directories were installed but not shipped" 
+		skip = (d.getVar('INSANE_SKIP_' + pn, True) or "").split()
+		if "installed_vs_shipped" in skip:
+			bb.note("Package %s skipping QA tests: installed_vs_shipped" % pn)
+		else:
+			package_qa_handle_error("installed_vs_shipped", msg, d)
+			for f in unshipped:
+				package_qa_handle_error("installed_vs_shipped", "  " + f, d)
 
 	bb.build.exec_func("package_name_hook", d)
 
-- 
1.7.10.4