Re: [OE-core][PATCH] classes/buildhistory: capture package config

["Mikko Rapeli" <mikko.rapeli@bmw.de>]

Hi,

On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 02:17:51PM +0200, Jan Lübbe wrote:
> On Mon, 2020-06-15 at 11:29 +0000, Mikko.Rapeli@bmw.de wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 03, 2020 at 10:12:37AM +0200, Jan Luebbe wrote:
> > > As the PACKAGECONFIG variable has a large influence on the
> > > resulting
> > > package sizes and dependencies, it's useful to capture it in the
> > > recipe-level buildhistory. This makes it straightforward to analyze
> > > the
> > > impact of PACKAGECONFIG changes on the resulting image size.
> > 
> > Thanks, this is a good idea! I would print using full PACKAGECONFIG
> > name to avoid any confusion.
> 
> Note that Richard has already merged this in master.
> 
> I thought it was pretty clear when looking at if from the package
> context in the buildhistory. I wouldn't mind renaming it to
> PACKAGECONFIG, it there's agreement that it would be clearer.

Yes, to me it is also clear, but I find it better to be explicit and to avoid
duplication. Now someone needs to write to some manual that CONFIG in buildhistory
recipe metadata means PACKAGECONFIG :) But I'm happy this in mastes as is too.

> > And this reminds me that DISTRO_FEATURES isn't logged into
> > buildhistory either afaik...
> 
> Might be useful, but DISTRO_FEATURES is relatively high-level so
> there's usually not much details you can optimize.

Yes, but in most cases it directly influences PACKAGECONFIG in various recipes.
At least I modify PACKAGECONFIG of many recipes, sometimes through DISTRO_FEATURES
and sometimes directly using bbappends. End results is not always clear and
I have to use 'bitbake -e' and manual inspection of installed files and features
to verify results. Recording things to buildhistory would be nice.

Buildhistory is so usefull that I feel like it should contain all data parsed by
bitbake...

Cheers,

-Mikko