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

[Mark Hatle <mark.hatle@windriver.com>]

On 12/21/11 12:43 PM, Saul Wold wrote:
> 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}"

Ya, I believe the original work was the reverse.. SUMMARY was the first X number 
of characters from the DESCRIPTION, but that soon changed..

Then the next iteration, all of the descriptions become summary fields and 
DESCRIPTION inherited SUMMARY.

And then a default SUMMARY was added to maintain compatibility with older OE 
recipes.

> 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

I agree, this should become some kind of an audit warning, so we can improve the 
quality of the recipe information.  I'm not sure I want it to be an error though 
as it may impact folks with existing OE recipes...

--Mark

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core