From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1RE2wa-0007gN-M2 for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Wed, 12 Oct 2011 19:50:19 +0200 Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by fmsmga101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 12 Oct 2011 10:44:30 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.69,335,1315206000"; d="scan'208";a="72822668" Received: from unknown (HELO [10.255.15.65]) ([10.255.15.65]) by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 12 Oct 2011 10:44:29 -0700 Message-ID: <4E95D1FD.3020608@linux.intel.com> Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 10:44:29 -0700 From: Joshua Lock User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110930 Thunderbird/7.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org References: <1318423185.23801.153.camel@ted> In-Reply-To: <1318423185.23801.153.camel@ted> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/1] QA check for defined packages X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 17:50:20 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 10/12/2011 05:39 AM, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Tue, 2011-10-11 at 15:29 -0700, Joshua Lock wrote: >> Folks, >> >> I'm looking for some comments on this WIP patch. >> >> The reason I've added this is because the hob GUI requires us to offer much >> more reliable metadata - we show the user available packages, as defined by >> each recipe, to add to their image. Should a recipe define a package and yet >> not actually create it and the user has included that in their image we cause >> errors at build time. >> >> However whilst the idea seems sound enough, there are some caveats - running >> a world build with this patch I see failures fairly early on at least a few >> of which I'd expect we'll need to special-case: >> * eglibc-local >> * linux-yocto >> * linux-libc-headers >> * gcc-runtime > > You'd probably get much better results from this patch if you account > for ALLOW_EMPTY_ btw... Indeed, that does look useful. So, ignoring the Hob discussion I still think this QA check will be generally useful. Are others open to this if I work on it further? Regards, Joshua -- Joshua Lock Yocto Project "Johannes factotum" Intel Open Source Technology Centre