On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 12:58 PM, Frans Meulenbroeks <[email protected]> wrote: > 2011/1/25 Maupin, Chase <[email protected]>: >> All, >> >> I have noticed that when building packages such as perl that while my build >> will report success and no errors, the return status from the bitbake >> command was "1". I was able to produce this by doing: >> >> MACHINE=am37x-evm bitbake perl >> >> After bitbake completed I saw: >> >> NOTE: Tasks Summary: Attempted 851 tasks of which 0 didn't need to be rerun >> and 0 failed. >> >> but checking $? yields a return status of "1". >> >> I looked into the log and noticed a lot of messages like: >> >> ERROR: QA Issue with db: package db contains bad RPATH >> >> My understanding is that recent fixes to libtool 2.4 prevent these errors >> but I am using an older version of Angstrom which pins to libtool 2.2. I >> also have found this issue with the Arago distribution which likewise uses >> libtool 2.2. >> >> So my question here is whether bitbake should be failing when it encounters >> these QA issues with a bad RPATH and exiting? >> >> If not then should the return status be "1"? This causes issues when using >> a script that issues builds and then checks the return status for success or >> failure. If the QA issues are deemed acceptable (or should be warnings) >> then I would expect the return status to not indicate a failure. >> >> I have attached a log of my build for reference >> >> As another interesting side note which I don't know is related or not, when >> building Arago with bitbake 1.10.2 the return status is "1". When building >> the same Arago metadata with bitbake 1.8.19 the return status is "0". What >> is strange here is that since Arago uses a slightly older version of the OE >> metadata it is not seeing the RPATH errors reported above (the check isn't >> in the insane.bbclass for Arago yet). So for some reason bitbake 1.8.19 >> says everything went fine and bitbake 1.10.2 reports a status of "1" even >> though there is no reported error. I'm not sure if this is related to the >> above in any way or if this is a separate issue. >> >> Sincerely, >> Chase Maupin >> > > I've seen this on other places as well. > I'd say if a package has a QA issue the build of that package should > fail, because the resulting output is defnitely not OK. >
yes it should fail. However some may raise questions "it used to build and not it doesnt" so someone has to fix the problems quickly > Frans > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel > _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
