[meta-virtualization] [PATCH V2 1/3] sanity-bbappend.bbclass: add class for bbappend files checking

[Bruce Ashfield]

On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 6:40 AM, Richard Purdie <
richard.purdie at linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 2017-09-25 at 16:41 +0800, Chen Qi wrote:
> > Add a new class, sanity-bbappend.bbclass, to check for whether
> > necessary
> > settings are available for bbappend files in this layer to be
> > effective,
> > and warn users if not.
> >
> > In addition, a variable SKIP_SANITY_BBAPPEND_CHECK is added to enable
> > users
> > to explicitly skip the checking to avoid unwanted warnings.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Chen Qi <Qi.Chen at windriver.com>
> > ---
> >  classes/sanity-bbappend.bbclass | 10 ++++++++++
>
> That is a horrible name for a bbclass, could easily clash with another
> layer.
>
> >  conf/layer.conf                 |  4 ++++
> >  2 files changed, 14 insertions(+)
> >  create mode 100644 classes/sanity-bbappend.bbclass
>
> Looking at this patch series, I suspect this is partly related to YP
> Compatibility v2.
>

It is.

The first series arrived that created a magic distro variable
'virtualization'
that no one would know about, and have no idea how to use it .. as a result
existing configurations would have a silent and drastic change on the
behaviour.

I wasn't about to merge that change, so I suggested that if everything was
to be triggered off a variable, that variable needed to be advertised by
more
than just its use in the code, and more than a mention in a README.

That led to this first effort at making the new distro variable visible.


>
> I do think that its highlighting an issue here in that we have several
> very similar bbappends where the functionality would likely be better
> in a common file and secondly, better in the core recipes.
>
> This layer would then just need to configure it rather than adding the
> config fragements and so on as well.
>
> So yes, I think there is a valid issue here and in many senses, YP
> Compat v2 is probably highlighting a real problem but I suspect this
> patch series is not the way to fix it...
>
> Is there a good reason we wouldn't want "virt" markup in the main
> recipes and it being a configuration option?
>

I'm not following the configuration option 100%. Do you just mean setting
'virtualization' in distro features or some other similar configuration
variable ? If that had to be manually done via distro or local.conf that
would
leave my original concern outstanding.

Bruce



>
> Cheers,
>
> Richard
>
>
> --
> _______________________________________________
> meta-virtualization mailing list
> meta-virtualization at yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-virtualization
>



-- 
"Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await thee
at its end"
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.yoctoproject.org/pipermail/meta-virtualization/attachments/20170925/ab9efae0/attachment.html>