Openembedded Core Discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Joshua Lock <joshua.g.lock@linux.intel.com>
To: Alexander Kanavin <alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com>,
	 "openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org"
	<openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] zlib: update SRC_URI to fix fetching
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 15:36:29 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1484321789.3828.7.camel@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7e7e15bd-9481-efa8-80af-60300016575e@linux.intel.com>

On Fri, 2017-01-13 at 16:18 +0200, Alexander Kanavin wrote:
> On 01/13/2017 03:51 PM, Lock, Joshua G wrote:
> 
> > Noted, thanks. Do we maintain a list of things we'd like people to
> > check, and how to do it, when making updates to recipes?
> 
> I don't think there's such a list, perhaps we should make one and
> place 
> it in patch guidelines wiki.

I think we should, yes please.

> > checkpkg isn't available by default (had to add distrodata to
> > INHERITS)
> > and it took me a while to realise the results are written to a file
> > I
> > have to check. If we expect people to run these checks before
> > submitting updates we'd best make it as easy as possible to know
> > what
> > the checks are and how to run them.
> 
> I think this particular check should be automated and run in
> package_qa, 
> if it's okay to access the network in that step. Is it?

I don't think we should be accessing the network during package_qa.

> Alternatively, if checkuri is regularly run somewhere, then checkpkg 
> should be as well.

We run checkuri on the autobuilders and checkpkg is used by the recipe
report tool, though that's run less frequently. 

Running checkpkg on the autobuilders won't really help as the
autobuilders rely on the bitbake invocation returning a non-zero exit
code to determine whether to mark the build step as failed, and that's
not the case when checkpkg doesn't find an update version.

If we regularly run checkpkg on the autobuilders how should we detect
that a SRC_URI change has caused the upstream version check to fail?

Joshua


  reply	other threads:[~2017-01-13 15:36 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-01-05 16:34 [PATCH] zlib: update SRC_URI to fix fetching Joshua Lock
2017-01-09 12:56 ` Alexander Kanavin
2017-01-13 13:00   ` Alexander Kanavin
2017-01-13 13:54     ` Joshua Lock
     [not found]     ` <1484315514.3828.2.camel@intel.com>
2017-01-13 14:18       ` Alexander Kanavin
2017-01-13 15:36         ` Joshua Lock [this message]
2017-01-13 15:53           ` Alexander Kanavin
2017-02-08 14:23             ` Joshua Lock

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1484321789.3828.7.camel@linux.intel.com \
    --to=joshua.g.lock@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=alexander.kanavin@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox