Re: [PATCH] packagegroup: Add init-manager sanity check

[Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Thu, 2013-04-18 at 12:39 +0200, Enrico Scholz wrote:
> Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> writes:
> 
> >> > Currently, you can set VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_init_manager to an init
> >> > system that isn't in DISTRO_FEATURES. This leads to head scratching
> >> > over unbootable images.
> >> 
> >> Because this sanity check is placed into an anonymous function, this
> >> change affects also images which do not not include packagegroup-core*
> >> in their images and are not using VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_init_manager at all.
> >
> > Affects in that it runs the anonymous python fragment but does nothing?
> 
> no; the 'parsing recipes' phase throws an exceptions
> 
> | ERROR: Please ensure that your setting of VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_init_manager (sysvinit) matches the entries enabled in DISTRO_FEATURES##                                                               | ETA:  00:00:14
> | ERROR: Unable to parse /srv/oe/dev/org.openembedded.core/meta/recipes-extended/packagegroups/packagegroup-core-basic.bb: Exited with "1"
> | ERROR: Command execution failed: Exited with 1
> 
> 
> Of course, I can BBMASK out these packagegroup-core recipes or simply
> define VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_init_manager.

Hmm, I understand now.

The way I see this is that the system can't know if anything in your
environment is going to use packagegroup-* or not. Given that, I do
think this is a valid warning since whilst you know not to use them,
others may not.

> > Other proposals for solutions are welcome. I thought it better to
> > catch a common user misconfiguration than generate broken images
> > silently though.
> 
> You can put this check into e.g. do_configure[prefuncs].

So it errors at build time some time later? Where we can is it not
better to inform the user of configuration issues earlier?

Cheers,

Richard