From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pw0-f47.google.com ([209.85.160.47]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <640e9920@gmail.com>) id 1QSVWg-0000eq-Ph for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Fri, 03 Jun 2011 16:39:02 +0200 Received: by pwj9 with SMTP id 9so1071941pwj.6 for ; Fri, 03 Jun 2011 07:35:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id:reply-to :references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=/LhIZC3u9MAQ/zBadXWML9K4oILjbX/g6+bqKf2JX1E=; b=WsQlXLJ0Oc8B8BXSKLACu8gE1xttEAbyK92bxPHnwsJzwN+rMW2OQ9LRxwgum9TbuC A/XLOhZJdbqV7+SzVwWB/dEZuA/AeI1JNo69A4znIX4aZ7HcNGbbB6PqYHLCqthcZ12N lgjDRGY7/q0FR2oxPZgFpgwQfXZU8JEKDJjQs= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id:reply-to:references :mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to :user-agent; b=UipZdSfM7ZjNu3LIo2TjSnp6BdE/rgC1lNiFWaX8N+YjBik1xiE1EQEBbIKX6WcasG qrQCJu4DO1DzhQgljlmpMDa0+QsygqVGcu0dEal0AxgzxvnYV0kcnDbtCjJYG8KY3Awa ljFXArWzswETc6iOHBzl5lao1jam36nSmHNAc= Received: by 10.68.36.194 with SMTP id s2mr775706pbj.119.1307111748392; Fri, 03 Jun 2011 07:35:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (c-24-22-115-171.hsd1.or.comcast.net [24.22.115.171]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id w2sm1510301pbg.5.2011.06.03.07.35.46 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 03 Jun 2011 07:35:47 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mgross <640e9920@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2011 07:35:45 -0700 From: mark gross To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer Message-ID: <20110603143545.GB27754@gvim.org> References: <4DE56B0D.4020209@intel.com> <1306940803.2529.101.camel@phil-desktop> <1306945558.27470.435.camel@rex> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1306945558.27470.435.camel@rex> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Subject: Re: Tell me your build error message annoyances! X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: markgross@thegnar.org, Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer 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, 03 Jun 2011 14:39:03 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 05:25:58PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Wed, 2011-06-01 at 16:06 +0100, Phil Blundell wrote: > > On Tue, 2011-05-31 at 15:26 -0700, Scott Garman wrote: > > > I'd like to collect some feedback on error messages while building that > > > you find confusing/annoying/unhelpful. I'm going to be working on trying > > > to improve the situation and would like to hear from you about what > > > could be more helpful. > > > > Funnily enough we were just having a discussion about this on irc. My > > personal top two least favourite diagnostics are: > > > > a) "bitbake -b nonexistent-file" gives ten lines of so of python > > exception traceback and then prints "MultipleMatches". > > > > b) "bitbake -b recipe.bb", with a recipe that skips (due to an > > inCOMPATIBLE_MACHINE or whatever) gives the traditional ten lines of > > traceback spew and then prints "TypeError: 'NoneType' object is not > > iterable". > > > > This is with bitbake 1.13.0. > > Agreed, these are issues. > > I'd like to highlight that there is an underlying design issue in > bitbake which make these hard issues to fix. Its very hard for bitbake > to work out when it needs to show the traceback and when it doesn't. > > If the user has been given an explanation of the problem we shouldn't > show the traceback but its hard to know that is the case. > > Somehow we therefore need to improve the error infrastructure in bitbake > to be able to tell the difference between an unexpected error where a > traceback is useful and a known error which has been explained to the > user and no traceback is required. Well perhaps it would be easier to build a list of packages that have been skipped? I think the cache knows about them. Perhaps they could be reported to a "skipped" file or something similar? --mark