Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] meta: simplify conditional operations with bb.utils.filter

[Joao Marcos Costa <joaomarcos.costa@bootlin.com>]

Hello,

(...)

> 
> VAR_1 = bb.utils.filter(VAR_2, ....)
> 
> When you do this, this gives people an impression that VAR1 and VAR2 are 
> conceptually related.
> 
> For example, PACKAGECONFIG & DISTRO_FEATURES both control the way 
> recipes are built, they are switches for recipes, and they are related. 
> Many PACKAEGECONFIG items' names are selected to be the same with 
> DISTRO_FEAETURES, e.g., pam, acl., because they are the most reasonable 
> names.

I see what you mean now, thanks!

> But if you look at ERROR_QA, the items names really have no relations 
> with DISTRO_FEATURES. The usrmerge QA check was actually checking 
> filesystem hierarchy. If we consider the possible sbin -> bin merge in 
> the future, the QA check name should be something like 
> "filesystem-hierarchy-check".

Indeed.

> 
> To be clear, I'm not against *all* parts of this patch. For example, you 
> have:
> 
>   PACKAGECONFIG ?= "\
> -    ${@bb.utils.contains('DISTRO_FEATURES', 'selinux', 'selinux', '', 
> d)} \
> +    ${@bb.utils.filter('DISTRO_FEATURES', 'selinux', d)} \
>   "
> 
> And I think it's a correct change.
> 
> I think the problematic ones are ERROR_QA and RDEPENDS.

Well, PACKAGECONFIG is also related to runtime, not only build-time. 
What I mean is you can specify additional runtime dependencies in the 
PACKAGECONFIG declaration/definition [1], so one could argue that 
RDEPENDS and PACKAGECONFIG are not so conceptually distant as the 
ERROR_QA and DISTRO_FEATURES example.

> Regards,
> Qi

Thanks for the review, and for the clarification as well.

[1] 
https://docs.yoctoproject.org/ref-manual/variables.html#term-PACKAGECONFIG
-- 
Best regards,
João Marcos Costa