Re: [PATCH 1/2] u-boot: remove UBOOT_MACHINE and COMPATIBLE_MACHINES

[Darren Hart <dvhart@linux.intel.com>]

On 05/26/2011 04:24 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-05-26 at 14:12 -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
>> Note: I used bb.note() instead of bb.debug() to ensure the message at least
>>       makes it to the console. From what I could gather, bb.debug() doesn't
>>       go anywhere during recipe parsing.
> 
> Why?
> 

My thinking was that the only time you would legitimately try and build
this package when you can't is during a "world" build, which is likely
an unattended sort of build anyway. The rest of the time you might hit
this error would be when you intended to build u-boot but are missing
the requisite configuration bits in your machine config.

Since the debug lines don't get logged anywhere, and you have to clear
tmp/cache in order to retrigger the SkipPackage event with a new bitbake
command (even with -D), I thought it the most user friendly to ensure
the message made it out somewhere where it wouldn't get lost.

> We exclude about 30 different recipes

I didn't realize it was so many, it's difficult to tell just grepping
for SkipPackage.

> when parsing and would you really
> want to see a usability message from each one when you likely don't care
> about it?

See above for my rationale on when you "care about it".

> 
> A bb.debug is fine and the user can see it if they run with -D to get
> more info.

The user won't see it unless they clear tmp/cache, which isn't very
intuitive (or at least it wasn't to me).

> A bb.note is just irritating.

I can resend with bb.debug() if you feel strongly about it, as
apparently you do. I've answered your "why" question, but I don't feel
strongly about it. If you want to use bb.debug() I can resend as such
(or just repush with that single change).

Thanks,

-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
Yocto Project - Linux Kernel