Re: [PATCH 0/1] [RESEND]Create a script for SUMMARY audit in recipes

[Saul Wold <sgw@linux.intel.com>]

On 12/21/2011 10:16 AM, Joshua Lock wrote:
> On 20/12/11 22:10, Wang, Shane wrote:
>> Saul Wold wrote on 2011-12-21:
>>
>>> On 12/20/2011 08:32 PM, Shane Wang wrote:
>>>> Here is the script to check which recipe provides SUMMARY and which
>>>> doesnot. For those which do not, maintainer should add or update to a
>>>> meaningful summary for HOB to display in description.
>>>>
>>> Shane,
>>>
>>> I guess I am not understanding why this is needed.  Why can't we use
>>> DESCRIPTION which is a required entry?  Use the first X Characters of
>>> DESCRIPTION?
>
> There's a huge difference between a purposefully crafted 72 character
> summary and a free-for all description field that will have to be
> chopped to be displayed in the GUI. I originally chose summary as a
> succinct 72 characters would fit much better in the available UI.
>
> Aside: according to the Yocto docs the SUMMARY field should fall back to
> DESCRIPTION anyway. It's just that right now we do that at the package
> back-end level for each package back-end.
>
Seems that's the other way around as coded, DESCRIPTION falls back to 
SUMMARY

meta/conf/bitbake.conf:DESCRIPTION ?= "${SUMMARY}"

Which is why I think this issue is cropping up. So, then the proposal
should really be to add SUMMARY to all recipes and initially make it a 
warning for now if non-existent SUMMARY as with DESCRIPTION and then 
remove the existing SUMMARY = ${PN}-${PV} ...??

The audit would then be the list of warnings which later becomes error

Sau!

>
>> OK, then HOB has a bug. To use DESCRIPTION instead of SUMMARY. I am OK with that.
>> Josh, Dongxiao, did you see any problem if I change that?
>
> I think it's the wrong solution.
>
> Joshua