On Thu, 2011-01-06 at 07:27 -0700, Chris Larson wrote: > Agreed. Nothing new there. There are always possibilities that crop > up and need to be added to the very long backlog of things to > consider.
I think we are making progress on some of that backlog though :) > >> > Regarding the environment, it might be an idea to dump this to a new > >> > separate file, env.XXX in exec_task alongside the task logfile. We could > >> > just inject a "source env.XXX" into the run file then, making it clear > >> > which environment was being used by the shell function. This would also > >> > mean we can clearly see what environment python tasks are running under > >> > too which is a question I've been asked before in reference to pseudo > >> > usage in python functions in Poky. Previously its been impossible to > >> > figure that out without hacking bitbake's code. > >> > >> This seems reasonable, particularly for the python functions, now that > >> the exported vars go into the environment. > > > > Just so I understand who is doing what, are you going to have a go at > > these things? > > I can certainly do so, I probably have more time available than you do > at the moment :) I am indeed struggling for time in various ways at the moment so if you can help I'm more than happy. > > For the poky-sync branch, is there anything blocking merging that? I > > think that branch and master possibly have a conflict over the python > > function handling after the last commit to master which is why I haven't > > pulled that change into Poky yet. How did the tests you/Tom were going > > to run work out? > > Last I heard, there were no issues with the builds that didn't already > exist without the bitbake changes, which is promising. I haven't yet > verified that the removal of the env setup bits from bb.build fixes > the rootfs construction for poky builds, however. I'd like to do that > before merging it, and will test that today. > > > If we can get that merged, we'll be in a better position to sort out the > > remaining bits with Poky and get us back to one codebase for bitbake. > > Assuming the rootfs issue is fixed, and assuming no other issues > popped up in tom's builds since yesterday, I'd say we could go ahead > and merge it tomorrow or later today after the testing. Ok, this all sounds good to me, thanks! Cheers, Richard _______________________________________________ Bitbake-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bitbake-dev
