From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A0777E3BC for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2019 23:25:45 +0000 (UTC) X-Amp-Result: SKIPPED(no attachment in message) X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from fmsmga005.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.32]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 27 Jun 2019 16:25:46 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.63,425,1557212400"; d="scan'208";a="360881046" Received: from qnguyen5-mobl.ccr.corp.intel.com (HELO localhost.localdomain) ([10.255.155.227]) by fmsmga005.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 27 Jun 2019 16:25:43 -0700 From: Paul Eggleton To: Chen Qi Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2019 11:25:40 +1200 Message-ID: <7850229.D4MhMV1OIs@localhost.localdomain> Organization: Intel Corporation In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] devtool: warn user about multiple layer having the same base name X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 23:25:46 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On Thursday, 27 June 2019 3:14:55 PM NZST Chen Qi wrote: > Currently `devtool finish RECIPE meta' will silently succeed even > if there are multiple layers having the same base name of 'meta'. > e.g. meta layer from oe-core and meta layer from meta-secure-core. Good catch! > We should at least give user a warning in such case. With the patch, > we will get warning like below. > > WARNING: Multiple layers have the same base name 'meta', use the first one '/oe-core/meta'. > WARNING: Consider using path instead of base name to specify layer: > /oe-core/meta > /meta-secure-core/meta > "use the first one" -> "using the first one" However I'm wondering if this is the right behaviour. What if the user realises they actually wanted the second one? Given it's a warning the finish operation would have proceeded and the user will have to clean things up manually. Rather than a warning, should we in fact be erroring out and requiring the user to be more specific in this case? Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre