Re: [PATCH 2/2] bb-matrix: Make sure local.conf does not interfere

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

On Tue, 2013-09-10 at 08:42 -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-09-10 at 16:37 +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-09-10 at 08:33 -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2013-09-06 at 18:12 +0200, Peter Kjellerstedt wrote:
> > > > If any of BB_NUMBER_THREADS, PARALLEL_MAKE or SSTATE_DIR happened to be
> > > > set in local.conf then the bb-matrix script would not perform as
> > > > intended.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Peter Kjellerstedt <peter.kjellerstedt@axis.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  scripts/contrib/bb-perf/bb-matrix.sh | 4 ++++
> > > >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/scripts/contrib/bb-perf/bb-matrix.sh b/scripts/contrib/bb-perf/bb-matrix.sh
> > > > index 1064565..d5127e7 100755
> > > > --- a/scripts/contrib/bb-perf/bb-matrix.sh
> > > > +++ b/scripts/contrib/bb-perf/bb-matrix.sh
> > > > @@ -53,6 +53,10 @@ if [ $? -ne 0 ]; then
> > > >  	exit 1
> > > >  fi
> > > >  
> > > > +# Make sure neither of BB_NUMBER_THREADS, PARALLEL_MAKE and SSTATE_DIR are set
> > > > +# in local.conf
> > > > +sed -ri 's/^([[:space:]]*(BB_NUMBER_THREADS|PARALLEL_MAKE|SSTATE_DIR)[[:space:]]*\??=.*)/#\1/' conf/local.conf
> > > > +
> > > 
> > > Unless I'm mistaken, you are modifying the users local.conf?
> > > 
> > > We definitely should *not* be doing that. I would support documenting
> > > this as a requirement and even printing a warning if any of a set of
> > > variables are found in the bitbake environment.
> > > 
> > > Note that local.conf is not the only place where these could be set.
> > > 
> > > Richard, shouldn't the env setting override anything in local.conf?
> > 
> > No, it will override a ?= or ??= but not a =.
> 
> OK, well, a warning if found in local.conf (or site.conf?) is probably
> the best we can do for now. We can't check bitbake -e since that will
> report the default which we wouldn't be able to distinguish from an
> explicit setting.... unless we checked for an explicit assignment? Might
> be doable.... but a warning should be sufficient for a script in
> contrib, yes?

Yes, although I think in the comments, bitbake -e will tell you which
kind of operation was used :)

Cheers,

Richard