From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-it0-f50.google.com (mail-it0-f50.google.com [209.85.214.50]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3ABD72F74 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2017 13:38:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-it0-f50.google.com with SMTP id m27so2651924iti.1 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2017 05:38:17 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=intel-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to:references :organization:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=0z4VpadijmhoLTrT0XvRwcSZSvfk90QjVn1vs/NMBkk=; b=OR/uR0PIcqD+mMrXD8tI9XvbjMCO2ZbU75tbrl2iUrQFKwbEa1s9iWgqVWfG8vn20c MiwCuKCH+CjZ/DSl7UHBherS2sN2aISeP+fH8J0xa4f5EHLCBRkWCIYpuaH7DbBIcDOa l2i1j0P1kDZsglV19LvdPz+4DhJrfEvFo+92qmzoVDtmh1mSl2djR8abXz9yzEZpq1zX Xg+faF6PD76aT9H9kFNWmFD2hKCq4aNemtipPAIeaYpwmHw483f7vAnK0YhL8tQRsUrA hryj1nk8YzgB+5lC3tfJLndXOyK5lywm9sZqjoozARIa3iQ6iqHRFlnb2gx133uvNZeT dYIw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to :references:organization:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=0z4VpadijmhoLTrT0XvRwcSZSvfk90QjVn1vs/NMBkk=; b=fTpEAer9IsTcUz1BhnhZFOPmVHu3q+VRF/6te1LBzm4f2rOQPXus7TFrljpT2OE0MQ sMYgiMEKMlIOpoOBTqiqeGRUeavqliNaC3Wnq6/HCcOe0hYfVYNprM5xJQH0piwtxzwT hzx+xKo23dR6VKg83dbtIf5KlYIzOoA2di1rtOfyB/Z6DE3k65r4C2FZbUZ5qxh+7NnN oWD8fZimligRrUXRV2kcD3bcgEIY/XRP5CJCBT8m+kxCA7J6uBS/P8ZYXFcekEWeIWVJ D8MP+K85Xmb+OWcAn63IKXqUljJ4CMdZ76RDoDyvQFeuIvIWCHT/SdAW9Z3IH5xZP3AE kSjg== X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H3IqtqebtbzkhIufA09rc9Log4PD6iKLd6BjZXVJ+gaqMjmT6UxH7sjIHgFUCAtPX/c X-Received: by 10.36.154.69 with SMTP id l66mr1931513ite.18.1489153096566; Fri, 10 Mar 2017 05:38:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from pohly-mobl1 (p5DE8DCF9.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [93.232.220.249]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p140sm971791itc.27.2017.03.10.05.38.14 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 10 Mar 2017 05:38:15 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <1489153093.7785.443.camel@intel.com> From: Patrick Ohly To: Joshua Lock Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 14:38:13 +0100 In-Reply-To: <1489152420.3099.7.camel@linux.intel.com> References: <20170308172417.15776-1-joshua.g.lock@intel.com> <20170308172417.15776-2-joshua.g.lock@intel.com> <1489089950.7785.374.camel@intel.com> <1489152420.3099.7.camel@linux.intel.com> Organization: Intel GmbH, Dornacher Strasse 1, D-85622 Feldkirchen/Munich X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.9-1+b1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] meta-selftest: add selftest-ed recipes X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 13:38:15 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri, 2017-03-10 at 13:27 +0000, Joshua Lock wrote: > On Thu, 2017-03-09 at 21:05 +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote: > > On Wed, 2017-03-08 at 17:24 +0000, Joshua Lock wrote: > > > The oe-selftest oescripts.TestScripts.test_cleanup_workdir was > > > using > > > gzip and the GPLv2 variant to test cleanup of the workdir. This > > > broke > > > with the removal of GPLv2 recipes from OE-Core. > > > > > > Instead of relying on recipes in OE-Core remaining static we should > > > ensure that meta-selftest provides recipes required for the tests > > > to pass. > > > To that end we take a copy of the current GPLv2 and GPLv3 variants > > > of ed > > > and include them in meta-selftest as new recipes. > > > We chose ed over gzip as gzip has dependencies which would require > > > additional GPLv2 recipes to be included in meta-selftest. > > > > Wouldn't the test become faster when using artificial recipes, i.e. > > something which doesn't really need sources? Such an artificial > > recipe > > can use a local file as its "source", for example. > > Indeed, that would make the test faster. I took a shorter route for > this series in an attempt to unblock M3, however I realise that the > bitbake targets used in oe-selftest could do with a consistent review. Makes sense. -- Best Regards, Patrick Ohly The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter.