We’re well aware of the limitations and possibility of failed builds, as I said we hardcode revisions using SRCREV overrides when necessary. It’s been working well for us so far. So, respectfully, I think that’s not relevant to the discussion.
Chris From: Alexander Kanavin <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2019 12:59 PM To: LAPLANTE,CHRIS (Agilent USA) <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [bitbake-devel] RFC: exposing information about the SRC_URI(s)/branch via buildhistory (or similar mechanism) Apologies, but I think you should drop the practice of using AUTOREV. This completely destroys reproducibility of builds, and makes them susceptible to global breakage when someone pushes a broken commit into one of the component repositories. Yes, bumping SRCREV is annoying, but a) it can be automated; b) you can catch and reject any problems with the build at that point, so you always have a nightly that works. AUTOREV was never meant for the project level, it is a facility strictly for local development. Alex On Thu, 1 Aug 2019 at 18:51, chris.laplante--- via bitbake-devel <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hello all, Most of my team’s closed source recipes use something like the following: SRC_URI = "git://git@host/path;protocol=ssh;branch=${BRANCH}" SRCREV = “${AUTOREV}” BRANCH ??= “master” (BRANCH is just a convention we use to make the SRC_URI branch easy to override.) This makes nightly builds convenient because we always build from the latest. For release versions, we can use SRCREV_pn-recipe and/or BRANCH_pn-recipe overrides in local.conf. We get the SRCREV overrides using buildhistory-collect-srcrevs. But buildhistory has no notion or tracking of SRC_URI or branches, so currently we use a script that generates the BRANCH overrides. I’m interesting in adding SRC_URI support to buildhistory (or a similar mechanism), and would like to get some input. Option 1) The easiest way, I think, is to just generate SRC_URI_pn- overrides with variable expansion. Option 2) I think it could be useful to introduce BRANCH as a convention. Currently the “branch” SRC_URI parameter implicitly defaults to “master”. I could foresee it implicitly defaulting to “${BRANCH}”, with BRANCH ??= “master” to replicate existing functionality. To handle multiple source-controlled SRC_URIs, we’d have to do something similar to how SRCREV has a “name” override. With this option, I wouldn’t think it would be necessary to generate SRC_URI overrides; just BRANCH overrides. Option 3) A combination of 1 and 2? Looking forward to input. Thanks, Chris -- _______________________________________________ bitbake-devel mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/bitbake-devel
-- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
