From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lb0-f170.google.com (mail-lb0-f170.google.com [209.85.217.170]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBE9E6017E for ; Fri, 2 May 2014 20:11:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lb0-f170.google.com with SMTP id 10so3681642lbg.1 for ; Fri, 02 May 2014 13:11:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=S5BWL4+mybnnmytN7e4Z0Rtn+w/ydFE33POhqjp8uyQ=; b=tJ26OdgG4VRFf2YL3E/UnjPisbOT52NSQUHTTlxxgLrNvTP/0n3xE1qNnnnPh0R9xy sBWvq4g0FOIqDcD0lYeyNVXtfwj/5EaPdMXBDlY5xkcjDxneEYX/5j2bqtWyOdc1rKsb ziJVbZKjAgk5h62zNk2pVziUTWxnkOnCCfdDmoKrenn4pU+0fm82RbPBGAApB+30Cjvv VU+Tva5hY9N++CbbsR7EtmVAVR/0vRY8PZExzo2oA7HmKik7oEYPmbl4wnoH47tb+U1u 8AaZ4TjlrnhlhvzGTJNKj1U/E4S/09xa/H/bShChPjcFmpdkNN0JMOMvnjFJfzcU3v1i 62sQ== X-Received: by 10.112.126.7 with SMTP id mu7mr13602225lbb.17.1399061505475; Fri, 02 May 2014 13:11:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (ip-89-176-104-3.net.upcbroadband.cz. [89.176.104.3]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id x5sm7896lbk.5.2014.05.02.13.11.43 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 02 May 2014 13:11:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Original-From: Martin Jansa Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 22:11:55 +0200 From: Martin Jansa To: Richard Purdie Message-ID: <20140502201155.GX2486@jama> References: <1398963761.12731.1.camel@ted> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1398963761.12731.1.camel@ted> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Cc: openembedded-core Subject: Re: My thoughts on the future of OE? 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, 02 May 2014 20:11:51 -0000 X-Groupsio-MsgNum: 52761 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="4vWhYg7uLB0gjWmL" Content-Disposition: inline --4vWhYg7uLB0gjWmL Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 06:02:41PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: > I was asked what I thought were things that needed discussion at OEDAM. > Sadly I won't be there but I thought it might help to write down my > thoughts in a few areas. >=20 > Developer Workflow > ------------------ >=20 > Firstly, I think the big piece we need to address as a project is > "developer workflow" as this is where people are struggling using it. >=20 > Unfortunately "developer workflow" means different things to different > people? Which one do I mean then? I actually mean all of them. As some > examples: >=20 > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >=20 > * A kernel developer wanting to rebuild a kernel=20 > [on/off target, with the ADT/SDK or a recipe] > * A kernel developer wanting to build a kernel module > [on/off target, with the ADT/SDK or a recipe] > * An application developer wanting to build a single App > [on/off target, with the ADT/SDK or a recipe] > * An application developer wanting to (re)build a library, linking an=20 > App to it > [on/off target, with the ADT/SDK or a recipe] > * A user wanting to rebuild an image with a package added > [on and off target - feeds or a build] > * A user wanting to rebuild an image with more advanced changes One more workflow I see quite often and really isn't supported well is: * An application developer wanting to (re)build just one library and one test application, verify on target, iterate as long sa needed and then do "clean" build which will rebuild everything depending on it (not just the test app) Real world example is newer eglibc breaking audio from qtmultimedia, so the test app is depending on all qt* crap which takes forever to build and every developer change to eglibc will basically trigger rebuild of everything. We need an easy way to do such "simplified" builds where you don't care much about reproducibility. Currently most developers I know will do devshell/source run.do_foo for eglibc and the test-app + rsync/scp of thes= e 2 changed binaries to your target device to verify if the fix works. The bitbake -S improvements help to find "why" the build rebuilt so many components, but doesn't help with preventing it (see=20 https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D5970 --4vWhYg7uLB0gjWmL Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlNj/AsACgkQN1Ujt2V2gBxGogCdGRG0XfqZ9s92ZFKWwkHM/1qe jTcAn0YF2rYcVDoPCoc2qK1kXb8UZ6zq =BX/i -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --4vWhYg7uLB0gjWmL--