On Friday 04 February 2011 14:10:33 Frans Meulenbroeks wrote: > 2011/2/4 Otavio Salvador <[email protected]>: > > On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 09:57, Frans Meulenbroeks > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Actually I did not react on the libtool forcing upon everyone, but on > >> the QA errors (where this thread was about). > >> That was also the cause of the ostrich remark (which was definitely > >> not aimed at you in person, but more a general comment, triggered by > >> the fact that I have some experience with projects being outsourced to > >> an unnamed country where a bug report also could be "repaired" by > >> removing the message or the the symptom instead of tackling the root > >> cause). > >> > >> What I see is a lack of interest in fixing the existing QA errors. > >> I've sent out a few error reports to the list a while ago, (on recipes > >> that I feel not comfortable with), but unfortunately that did not > >> result in any action :-( > > > > I think we ought to FAIL on QA errors. Distros can ignore the errors > > if they want but OE as a whole cannot do that. > > I tend to agree with this. > Actually it would be nice if insane.bbclass would allow a way to > specify which tests you want to do. My suggestion: Run alI tests but make it configurable what causes just warnings and what causes errors (not too many options e.g. all QA cause errors or warning). There are different roles: OE-Users do not want the build to be broken - images with QA errors might run without errors. OE developers might appreciate to get a hard error for the package currently working on or for test builds.
Andreas _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
