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 1TJApM-0004Al-IP for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2012 00:20:32 +0200 Received: from blundell.swaffham-prior.co.uk ([91.216.112.25] helo=[192.168.114.6]) by hetzner.pbcl.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TJAcp-0004Jm-KO; Wed, 03 Oct 2012 00:07:35 +0200 Message-ID: <1349215508.4422.81.camel@x121e.pbcl.net> From: Phil Blundell To: Saul Wold Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2012 23:05:08 +0100 In-Reply-To: <506B6552.3040503@linux.intel.com> References: <1349215201-30117-1-git-send-email-sgw@linux.intel.com> <1349215253.4422.79.camel@x121e.pbcl.net> <506B6552.3040503@linux.intel.com> X-Mailer: Evolution 3.4.3-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] sstate: Add detail to shared area warning X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2012 22:20:32 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tue, 2012-10-02 at 15:06 -0700, Saul Wold wrote: > On 10/02/2012 03:00 PM, Phil Blundell wrote: > > On Tue, 2012-10-02 at 15:00 -0700, Saul Wold wrote: > >> - bb.warn("The recipe is trying to install files into a shared area when those files already exist. Those files are:\n %s" % "\n ".join(match)) > >> + bb.warn("The %s recipe is trying to install files into a shared area when those files already exist (please fix %s). Those files are:\n %s" % (d.getVar('PN', True), d.getVar('FILE', True), "\n ".join(match))) > > > > That seems potentially misleading: the file that needs fixing isn't > > necessarily the one that triggers this warning. What would be ideal > > would be to have it output the names of all recipes that have tried to > > stage the files in question so that the user can make an informed > > decision about which one ought to be putting them there. > > > True enough, but we don't have that information at that time, but it > gives more information than we had before, as to which recipe was adding > the files, I guess if I change the wording to something like > "verify" or "check"? Yeah, sounds good. p.