Re: [oe-commits] org.oe.dev anki: fix parse error

Re: [oe-commits] org.oe.dev anki: fix parse error

[pHilipp Zabel]

On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 4:01 PM, hrw commit
<openembedded-commits@lists.openembedded.org> wrote:
> anki: fix parse error
>
>  Author: hrw@openembedded.org
>  Branch: org.openembedded.dev
>  Revision: a33b3d19ac330b59af9dbbb80b1410d4579bba26
>  ViewMTN: http://monotone.openembedded.org/revision/info/a33b3d19ac330b59af9dbbb80b1410d4579bba26
>  Files:
>  1
>  packages/anki/anki_0.4.3.bb
>  Diffs:
>
>  #
>  # mt diff -r75f2dc6b3a783a084bf013ce7dc072992561a9bd -ra33b3d19ac330b59af9dbbb80b1410d4579bba26
>  #
>  #
>  #
>  # patch "packages/anki/anki_0.4.3.bb"
>  #  from [bbc71d5b420649c30e0f4e7ca986a9f3516be13e]
>  #    to [de5cc8560fa7d2401299249253867146486bcf24]
>  #
>  ============================================================
>  --- packages/anki/anki_0.4.3.bb bbc71d5b420649c30e0f4e7ca986a9f3516be13e
>  +++ packages/anki/anki_0.4.3.bb de5cc8560fa7d2401299249253867146486bcf24
>  @@ -1,9 +1,9 @@ PR = "r0"
>   require anki.inc
>
>   RDEPENDS += "libanki"
>   PR = "r0"
>
>  -export PV
>  +export PV="${PV}"

ERROR: variable PV references itself!

rolling that patch back fixes this bitbake parsing error for me (I
didn't try to build anki)

regards
Philipp

Re: [oe-commits] org.oe.dev anki: fix parse error

[Michael 'Mickey' Lauer]

On Thursday 14 February 2008 17:17:01 pHilipp Zabel wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 4:01 PM, hrw commit
>
> <openembedded-commits@lists.openembedded.org> wrote:
> > anki: fix parse error
> >
> >  Author: hrw@openembedded.org
> >  Branch: org.openembedded.dev
> >  Revision: a33b3d19ac330b59af9dbbb80b1410d4579bba26
> >  ViewMTN:
> > http://monotone.openembedded.org/revision/info/a33b3d19ac330b59af9dbbb80b
> >1410d4579bba26 Files:
> >  1
> >  packages/anki/anki_0.4.3.bb
> >  Diffs:
> >
> >  #
> >  # mt diff -r75f2dc6b3a783a084bf013ce7dc072992561a9bd
> > -ra33b3d19ac330b59af9dbbb80b1410d4579bba26 #
> >  #
> >  #
> >  # patch "packages/anki/anki_0.4.3.bb"
> >  #  from [bbc71d5b420649c30e0f4e7ca986a9f3516be13e]
> >  #    to [de5cc8560fa7d2401299249253867146486bcf24]
> >  #
> >  ============================================================
> >  --- packages/anki/anki_0.4.3.bb bbc71d5b420649c30e0f4e7ca986a9f3516be13e
> >  +++ packages/anki/anki_0.4.3.bb de5cc8560fa7d2401299249253867146486bcf24
> >  @@ -1,9 +1,9 @@ PR = "r0"
> >   require anki.inc
> >
> >   RDEPENDS += "libanki"
> >   PR = "r0"
> >
> >  -export PV
> >  +export PV="${PV}"
>
> ERROR: variable PV references itself!
>
> rolling that patch back fixes this bitbake parsing error for me (I
> didn't try to build anki)

export PV is valid syntax, but needs bitbake >= 1.8.8.

If you think it's too early to depend on this, then you can substitute with

export PV := "${PV}"

:M:
-- 
Dr. Michael 'Mickey' Lauer | IT-Freelancer | http://www.vanille-media.de

Re: [oe-commits] org.oe.dev anki: fix parse error

[Michael 'Mickey' Lauer]

On Friday 15 February 2008 12:45:29 Michael 'Mickey' Lauer wrote:
> export PV is valid syntax, but needs bitbake >= 1.8.8.

bitbake 1.8.10, that is. Still feverish here...

:M:
-- 
Dr. Michael 'Mickey' Lauer | IT-Freelancer | http://www.vanille-media.de

Re: [oe-commits] org.oe.dev anki: fix parse error

[Rolf Leggewie]

Michael 'Mickey' Lauer wrote:
> export PV is valid syntax, but needs bitbake >= 1.8.8.
> 
> If you think it's too early to depend on this, then you can substitute with
> 
> export PV := "${PV}"

I think depending on 1.8.10 is fine and indeed, this might be a good
test to make sure everybody updates ;-)

Thanks for clarifying why some people saw this while most did not.

Re: [oe-commits] org.oe.dev anki: fix parse error

[Mike (mwester)]

Rolf Leggewie wrote:
> Michael 'Mickey' Lauer wrote:
>   
>> export PV is valid syntax, but needs bitbake >= 1.8.8.
>>
>> If you think it's too early to depend on this, then you can substitute with
>>
>> export PV := "${PV}"
>>     
>
> I think depending on 1.8.10 is fine and indeed, this might be a good
> test to make sure everybody updates ;-)
>
>   

I recall a series of discussions some months ago regarding the topic of 
making OE an easier tool for other distro developers, companies, or 
individuals to use.  Requiring a bitbake upgrade to accommodate a 
single-line in a single recipe that can easily be expressed in a fashion 
compatible with the existing bitbake versions installed, well that just 
seem to fly in the face of that earlier discussion.

Here's one vote for against forcing a complete bitbake upgrade on other 
communities:
-1 from me!

> Thanks for clarifying why some people saw this while most did not.
>
>   

Mike (mwester)

Re: [oe-commits] org.oe.dev anki: fix parse error

[Paul Sokolovsky]

Hello,

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 09:03:00 -0600
"Mike (mwester)" <mwester@dls.net> wrote:

> Rolf Leggewie wrote:
> > Michael 'Mickey' Lauer wrote:
> >   
> >> export PV is valid syntax, but needs bitbake >= 1.8.8.
> >>
> >> If you think it's too early to depend on this, then you can
> >> substitute with
> >>
> >> export PV := "${PV}"
> >>     
> >
> > I think depending on 1.8.10 is fine and indeed, this might be a good
> > test to make sure everybody updates ;-)
> >
> >   
> 
> I recall a series of discussions some months ago regarding the topic
> of making OE an easier tool for other distro developers, companies,
> or individuals to use.  Requiring a bitbake upgrade to accommodate a 
> single-line in a single recipe that can easily be expressed in a
> fashion compatible with the existing bitbake versions installed, well
> that just seem to fly in the face of that earlier discussion.
> 
> Here's one vote for against forcing a complete bitbake upgrade on
> other communities:
> -1 from me!

That's for sure valid point, but hard to enforce in .dev. Now that we
have a stable branch again, it shouldn't be underestimated: entities
valuing stability over all, should consider using it (and
participating in its maintenance ;-) ).

[]

-- 
Best regards,
 Paul                          mailto:pmiscml@gmail.com

Re: [oe-commits] org.oe.dev anki: fix parse error

[Philip Balister]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 291 bytes --]

Paul Sokolovsky wrote:

> That's for sure valid point, but hard to enforce in .dev. Now that we
> have a stable branch again, it shouldn't be underestimated: entities
> valuing stability over all, should consider using it (and
> participating in its maintenance ;-) ).

+1

Philip

[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature, Size: 3303 bytes --]

RFD: is bitbake 1.8.10 minimum supported standard? (was: [oe-commits] org.oe.dev anki: fix parse error)

[Rolf Leggewie]

Mike (mwester) wrote:
> Requiring a bitbake upgrade to accommodate a 
> single-line in a single recipe that can easily be expressed in a fashion 
> compatible with the existing bitbake versions installed, well that just 
> seem to fly in the face of that earlier discussion.

Well, seen from that angle that seems to hold.  But that was not my
angle and I hope I was not being mistaken in this regard.

IIRC bitbake 1.8.10 has quite many bug fixes as well (RP?).  So, that is
more what I was getting at.  AFAIK, .dev and bitbake were meant to be
closely coupled.  IOW, don't run bleeding edge .dev with an old bitbake
and expect things to work.

I am open to extend the time until 1.8.8 is officially dead for .dev
What do others think about this question of timing?

Re: RFD: is bitbake 1.8.10 minimum supported standard? (was: [oe-commits] org.oe.dev anki: fix parse error)

[Richard Purdie]

On Fri, 2008-02-15 at 17:11 +0100, Rolf Leggewie wrote:
> Mike (mwester) wrote:
> > Requiring a bitbake upgrade to accommodate a 
> > single-line in a single recipe that can easily be expressed in a fashion 
> > compatible with the existing bitbake versions installed, well that just 
> > seem to fly in the face of that earlier discussion.
> 
> Well, seen from that angle that seems to hold.  But that was not my
> angle and I hope I was not being mistaken in this regard.
> 
> IIRC bitbake 1.8.10 has quite many bug fixes as well (RP?).  So, that is
> more what I was getting at.  AFAIK, .dev and bitbake were meant to be
> closely coupled.  IOW, don't run bleeding edge .dev with an old bitbake
> and expect things to work.
> 
> I am open to extend the time until 1.8.8 is officially dead for .dev
> What do others think about this question of timing?

Yes, 1.8.10 has lots of other fixes and improvements and I'd like to
see .dev switch to it at some point. Once we do that there are some
simplifications of code in OE.dev that can be made too.

I appreciate the bitbake 1.8.6 -> 1.8.8 change was bumpy due to sqlite
but 1.8.8 -> 1.8.10 should just be a drop in replacement so I don't see
any reason not to...

Cheers,

Richard

Re: RFD: is bitbake 1.8.10 minimum supported standard? (was: [oe-commits] org.oe.dev anki: fix parse error)

[Mike (mwester)]

Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-02-15 at 17:11 +0100, Rolf Leggewie wrote:
>   
>> Mike (mwester) wrote:
>>     
>>> Requiring a bitbake upgrade to accommodate a 
>>> single-line in a single recipe that can easily be expressed in a fashion 
>>> compatible with the existing bitbake versions installed, well that just 
>>> seem to fly in the face of that earlier discussion.
>>>       
>> Well, seen from that angle that seems to hold.  But that was not my
>> angle and I hope I was not being mistaken in this regard.
>>
>> IIRC bitbake 1.8.10 has quite many bug fixes as well (RP?).  So, that is
>> more what I was getting at.  AFAIK, .dev and bitbake were meant to be
>> closely coupled.  IOW, don't run bleeding edge .dev with an old bitbake
>> and expect things to work.
>>
>> I am open to extend the time until 1.8.8 is officially dead for .dev
>> What do others think about this question of timing?
>>     
>
> Yes, 1.8.10 has lots of other fixes and improvements and I'd like to
> see .dev switch to it at some point. Once we do that there are some
> simplifications of code in OE.dev that can be made too.
>
> I appreciate the bitbake 1.8.6 -> 1.8.8 change was bumpy due to sqlite
> but 1.8.8 -> 1.8.10 should just be a drop in replacement so I don't see
> any reason not to...
>
> Cheers,
>
> Richard
>
>   
Ok, ok -- let's not get too far off the point here.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't upgrade bitbake.  I'm just observing 
that a one-line change to a recipe has broken the build environment for 
many people, without any notice in advance that they should have 
upgraded bitbake.  My point is that if we want to be "friendly" to those 
environments that are looking for controlled and stable environments, we 
can't be checking in recipes that break the build for everyone, and then 
just say that the fix is for everyone to go upgrade bitbake.

It may be really, really really easy to upgrade to 1.8.10 -- and I'll do 
that sometime.  But until I get the time to create a reference build 
with my current bitbake version, clone that environment and create a 
reference build with 1.8.10 and compare the two -- well, until then I'm 
going to continue deleting the recipe that's forcing this change on me 
at this inopportune time.  THAT, my friends, is real life -- few other 
than hobbyists can just upgrade the core build engine at the drop of a 
hat because somebody checked in a new file (unrelated to what I might be 
using).

Regards,
Mike (aka "way-behind-the-times-Mike")

Re: RFD: is bitbake 1.8.10 minimum supported standard? (was: [oe-commits] org.oe.dev anki: fix parse error)

[Richard Purdie]

On Fri, 2008-02-15 at 11:23 -0600, Mike (mwester) wrote:
> Ok, ok -- let's not get too far off the point here.
> 
> I'm not saying that we shouldn't upgrade bitbake.  I'm just observing 
> that a one-line change to a recipe has broken the build environment for 
> many people, without any notice in advance that they should have 
> upgraded bitbake.  My point is that if we want to be "friendly" to those 
> environments that are looking for controlled and stable environments, we 
> can't be checking in recipes that break the build for everyone, and then 
> just say that the fix is for everyone to go upgrade bitbake.
> 
> It may be really, really really easy to upgrade to 1.8.10 -- and I'll do 
> that sometime.  But until I get the time to create a reference build 
> with my current bitbake version, clone that environment and create a 
> reference build with 1.8.10 and compare the two -- well, until then I'm 
> going to continue deleting the recipe that's forcing this change on me 
> at this inopportune time.  THAT, my friends, is real life -- few other 
> than hobbyists can just upgrade the core build engine at the drop of a 
> hat because somebody checked in a new file (unrelated to what I might be 
> using).

But lets also not forget what OE.dev is - a development branch. Stable
'branches' of OE exist and those stable branches have different policies
for dealing with this kind of change. For OE.dev, its fine to upgrade it
now given my understanding of what OE.dev represents.

I'm not basing the need for an upgrade on the one recipe btw, just that
in general I see OE.dev upgrading sometime, hopefully soon.

The change in question shouldn't have been committed whilst we still
have a minimum version of 1.8.8, I agree with that.

Cheers,

Richard

Re: [oe-commits] org.oe.dev anki: fix parse error

[Rolf Leggewie]

Michael 'Mickey' Lauer wrote:
> export PV is valid syntax, but needs bitbake >= 1.8.8.
> 
> If you think it's too early to depend on this, then you can substitute with
> 
> export PV := "${PV}"

committed in 1d82d7da50c81b71f828d13440271b55c50713f5

worked fine for me, but I am on 1.8.11