On 25/01/11 21:36, Khem Raj wrote: > 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 >
...and if it is considered a failure and returns 1, the summary shouldn't be reporting "0 failed", or at least there should be something reported at the end of the build to state that the build has been deemed a failure for those not running in a script and who don't read through the entire log of the build! Martyn >> 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 -- Martyn Welch (Principal Software Engineer) | Registered in England and GE Intelligent Platforms | Wales (3828642) at 100 T +44(0)127322748 | Barbirolli Square, Manchester, E [email protected] | M2 3AB VAT:GB 927559189 _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
