On Wed, May 6, 2026 at 10:29 AM Trevor Gamblin <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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?
To be honest, I think that we download bitbake to install bitbake (using bitbake-setup) so we can use another tool (bitbake-pipeline) to build bitbake. Although I understand why, it looks confusing. Why not: $ bitbake-setup --non-interactive <all your choices> $ ./<pipeline-name> all/step1/from-step15 Can I pip install bitbake-pipeline? For example. I understand `bitbake <pipeline-name>` is not what we want because some of the steps will not be bitbake dependable (such as a deploy which is only cp a image to a storage), that's why this pipeline isn't strictly a Yocto recipe (even though a Yocto recipe is just a list of steps). So the pipeline is a list of steps that may or may not depend on bitbake, which is kinda bash script for example? I like that the bitbake configuration template may provide a set of usable steps, but I don't understand what this other tool does (other than wrapping the build script) Daiane > > > > Alex > > > > > >
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#2330): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-architecture/message/2330 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]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
