From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga03.intel.com ([143.182.124.21]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TJAo4-00047D-2s for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Wed, 03 Oct 2012 00:19:12 +0200 Received: from azsmga001.ch.intel.com ([10.2.17.19]) by azsmga101.ch.intel.com with ESMTP; 02 Oct 2012 15:06:12 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,524,1344236400"; d="scan'208";a="199798224" Received: from unknown (HELO [10.255.13.203]) ([10.255.13.203]) by azsmga001.ch.intel.com with ESMTP; 02 Oct 2012 15:06:10 -0700 Message-ID: <506B6552.3040503@linux.intel.com> Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2012 15:06:10 -0700 From: Saul Wold User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120911 Thunderbird/15.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Phil Blundell References: <1349215201-30117-1-git-send-email-sgw@linux.intel.com> <1349215253.4422.79.camel@x121e.pbcl.net> In-Reply-To: <1349215253.4422.79.camel@x121e.pbcl.net> Cc: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] sstate: Add detail to shared area warning X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2012 22:19:12 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 10/02/2012 03:00 PM, Phil Blundell wrote: > On Tue, 2012-10-02 at 15:00 -0700, Saul Wold wrote: >> - bb.warn("The recipe is trying to install files into a shared area when those files already exist. Those files are:\n %s" % "\n ".join(match)) >> + bb.warn("The %s recipe is trying to install files into a shared area when those files already exist (please fix %s). Those files are:\n %s" % (d.getVar('PN', True), d.getVar('FILE', True), "\n ".join(match))) > > That seems potentially misleading: the file that needs fixing isn't > necessarily the one that triggers this warning. What would be ideal > would be to have it output the names of all recipes that have tried to > stage the files in question so that the user can make an informed > decision about which one ought to be putting them there. > True enough, but we don't have that information at that time, but it gives more information than we had before, as to which recipe was adding the files, I guess if I change the wording to something like "verify" or "check"? Sau! > p. > > > >