Re: BitBake changes in the Yocto Project 1.5 cycle

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

On Mon, 2013-04-22 at 21:12 +0200, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote:
> W dniu 22.04.2013 16:16, Richard Purdie pisze:
> > I've been giving some thought to where BitBake needs to go in the 
> > future in order to deliver for its users. It started life as a 
> > commandline utility and its grown a lot since it was first created.
> > I think there are some key decisions that need to be taken to ensure 
> > its future growth.
> 
> There is one thing which kind of bothers me. "ERROR" message which is
> just a warning. Like:
> 
> ERROR: libelf is listed in PACKAGES multiple times, this leads to packaging errors.
> ERROR: libasm is listed in PACKAGES multiple times, this leads to packaging errors.
> ERROR: libdw is listed in PACKAGES multiple times, this leads to packaging errors.
> ERROR: libdw-dev is listed in PACKAGES multiple times, this leads to packaging errors.
> ERROR: libasm-dev is listed in PACKAGES multiple times, this leads to packaging errors.
> ERROR: libelf-dev is listed in PACKAGES multiple times, this leads to packaging errors.
> 
> If it is error then let BitBake exit instead of doing task. If it is
> not error but just a warning then let it be renamed?

What we're trying to do is move everything to use a standard mechanism
for reporting issues of this type. With insane.bbclass, you can elect
whether a given type of error is a warning or errors and fails the task.

There are however several places where bb.error is used without that
mechanism. I'd love to see them fixed, please file a bug for it...

> My recent build failed with:
> 
> --------
> NOTE: recipe linaro-image-minimal-1.0-r0: task do_rm_work_all: Started
> NOTE: recipe linaro-image-minimal-1.0-r0: task do_rm_work_all: Succeeded
> NOTE: Tasks Summary: Attempted 2247 tasks of which 915 didn't need to be rerun and all succeeded.
> 
> Summary: There were 3 WARNING messages shown.
> Summary: There were 6 ERROR messages shown, returning a non-zero exit code.
> Build step 'Execute shell' marked build as failure
> --------
> 
> "all succeeded" does not look like a reason to fail a build.

Agreed, please open a bug for it.

FWIW Bitbake will set a non-zero exit code if any error messages appear,
as the message says. Whilst people find that confusing, I continue to
believe it is the right thing to be doing and we need to tighten up
things in other places as I describe above. That error code does help us
catch problems on the autobuilders and so forth.

Cheers,

Richard