On 2026-05-06 08:43, Alexander Kanavin via lists.openembedded.org wrote:
On Wed, 6 May 2026 at 12:23, Daiane Angolini
<[email protected]> wrote:
6. Run a pipeline, stopping after a particular step:
$ bitbake-setup build <pipeline-name> --stop-after <step-name>
Etc. How's this looking?
I like the term `steps`. I would like to add that this should be
optional, not required. One can still decide to avoid creating a
pipeline.
Yes of course.
Regarding a setup tool for builds, why not use `bitbake
<pipeline-name>` instead of `bitbake-setup build <pipeline-name>`?
bitbake operates on recipes using a well-known command line interface.
We can't bolt on something entirely different.
That said, pipeline functions don't have to be in bitbake-setup, they
can be in a separate tool (Trevor mentioned that 'bitbake-setup' as a
name doesn't fit that functionality very well). I just don't have any
ideas off the top of my head. 'bitbake-pipeline' ?
I do like this version of the proposal better. Having read the responses
from the two of you, I think 'bitbake-setup run' might be a reasonable
compromise for running steps and pipelines. What do you think?
Alex
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#2329):
https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-architecture/message/2329
Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/119158252/21656
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-architecture/unsub
[[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
