Re: [PATCH 2/4] recipes: add x11 to required DISTRO_FEATURES

[Martin Jansa <martin.jansa@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4674 bytes --]

On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 03:18:50PM +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
> 
> Op 30 okt. 2014, om 14:28 heeft Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> het volgende geschreven:
> 
> > On Thu, 2014-10-30 at 14:20 +0100, Martin Jansa wrote:
> >> On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 01:48:31PM +0200, Martin Jansa wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 02:18:30PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 2014-07-24 at 17:22 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 02:52:45PM +0100, Burton, Ross wrote:
> >>>>>> On 24 July 2014 14:42, Martin Jansa <martin.jansa@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> +REQUIRED_DISTRO_FEATURES = "x11"
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Now I'm wondering why this is the solution.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> If you attempt to build e.g. gnome-desktop explicitly without the x11
> >>>>>> distro feature you understandably get an error message, because
> >>>>>> gnome-desktop depends on libx11 which sanity checks the distro
> >>>>>> features.  This seems correct.
> >>>>>> 
> >>>>>> Presumably you're problem is that you're running world builds and
> >>>>>> they're producing errors on gnome-desktop because they can't satisfy a
> >>>>>> dependency on libx11.  It seems that bubbling up the
> >>>>>> REQUIRED_DISTRO_FEATURES tests isn't the right thing to do here - why
> >>>>>> can't SkipPackage be handled specially, so if you do bitbake -k world
> >>>>>> and libx11 emits SkipPackage, anything that has unsatisfiable
> >>>>>> dependencies because of this is also skipped?
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> We discussed this many months ago and IIRC the conclusion was that user
> >>>>> should explicitly say that he wants to skip the recipes which depend on
> >>>>> something skipped (so that he is aware of what he is missing).
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> At that time there wasn't REQUIRED_DISTRO_FEATURES support, so I've
> >>>>> created huge list of PNBLACKLISTs to blacklist everything not available
> >>>>> in our setup - so I can do world builds without ERRORs at the beginning.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> REQUIRED_DISTRO_FEATURES seems to me like reasonable compromise, that's
> >>>>> why I've sent this patchset to replace small part of my huge blacklist.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> This is the list:
> >>>>> https://github.com/openwebos/meta-webos/blob/master/conf/distro/include/webos-recipe-blacklist-world.inc
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> If someone has time to improve SkipPackage and we really want to skip
> >>>>> all depending packages, I would be glad to test such patch (because it
> >>>>> allows to easily drop all those blacklists for "depends-on-broken"
> >>>>> components)
> >>>> 
> >>>> The question here is whether we want a system which calculates what it
> >>>> thinks is right or that we declare it.
> >>>> 
> >>>> The risk is that if SkipPackage (now known as SkipRecipe) were to
> >>>> automatically "spread", you could in theory break the toolchain, have
> >>>> nothing buildable and "bitbake world" would return success.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Effectively the -k option to bitbake already does the SkipPackage
> >>>> "spread" idea since bitbake just removes dependencies until it works. If
> >>>> does that in a fairly verbose way but it does so deliberately so you can
> >>>> see what is going on.
> >>>> 
> >>>> The alternative is to declare what a given recipe supports and then we
> >>>> can know whether it should be skipped or not under a given circumstance.
> >>>> 
> >>>> Personally, I'm leaning towards a more declarative approach where we
> >>>> specify what should and shouldn't be expected to work. I'm open to
> >>>> discussion on it though...
> >>> 
> >>> I agree with more declarative approach.
> >>> 
> >>> I don't mind maintaining PNBLACKLIST e.g. for components depending on
> >>> something we decided to blacklist ourselves in distro config.
> >>> 
> >>> But for components like this, where we really know that they won't work
> >>> without X11 in DISTRO_FEATURES, I think bitbake should skip them
> >>> automatically (thanks to REQUIRED_DISTRO_FEATURES). It already
> >>> automatically skips all recipes in xorg-lib directory, why it shouldn't
> >>> skip other recipes living somewhere else?
> >> 
> >> Can we make some decision now?
> > 
> > Well, I think there was an implied outcome of this:
> > 
> > a) We don't want to automatically do things, we want something
> > declarative
> > 
> > b) We therefore need to go and add REQUIRED_DISTRO_FEATURES = "x11" to
> > some further places.
> > 
> > As such, I'll take patches.
> > 
> > Was that what other people understood?
> 
> That's how I read it and FWIW, I agree.

ping for Ross

-- 
Martin 'JaMa' Jansa     jabber: Martin.Jansa@gmail.com

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 188 bytes --]