Re: [yocto] BB_DANGLINGAPPENDS_WARNONLY = 1 or true?
On Sunday 03 November 2013 12:49:16 Khem Raj wrote: On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 3:27 AM, Robert P. J. Day rpj...@crashcourse.ca wrote: (i can see it's going to be that kind of weekend.) ref manual reads: BB_DANGLINGAPPENDS_WARNONLY = 1 but some layers define: meta-linaro/meta-aarch64/conf/layer.conf:BB_DANGLINGAPPENDS_WARNONLY = true meta-linaro/meta-linaro-toolchain/conf/layer.conf:BB_DANGLINGAPPENDS_WARN ONLY = true meta-linaro/meta-linaro/conf/layer.conf:BB_DANGLINGAPPENDS_WARNONLY = true poky-extras/meta-kernel-dev/conf/layer.conf:BB_DANGLINGAPPENDS_WARNONLY ?= true so general question(s) -- is it understood that 1 and true are equivalent? should there be a standard? should the ref manual be enhanced, or should the above layers clean themselves up? They are all correct. Accepted values are 1, yes, true Note - for this variable only. For consistency with other boolean type variables I'd suggest sticking to 1. Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Re: [yocto] BB_DANGLINGAPPENDS_WARNONLY = 1 or true?
On Mon, 4 Nov 2013, Paul Eggleton wrote: On Sunday 03 November 2013 12:49:16 Khem Raj wrote: On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 3:27 AM, Robert P. J. Day rpj...@crashcourse.ca wrote: (i can see it's going to be that kind of weekend.) ref manual reads: BB_DANGLINGAPPENDS_WARNONLY = 1 but some layers define: meta-linaro/meta-aarch64/conf/layer.conf:BB_DANGLINGAPPENDS_WARNONLY = true meta-linaro/meta-linaro-toolchain/conf/layer.conf:BB_DANGLINGAPPENDS_WARN ONLY = true meta-linaro/meta-linaro/conf/layer.conf:BB_DANGLINGAPPENDS_WARNONLY = true poky-extras/meta-kernel-dev/conf/layer.conf:BB_DANGLINGAPPENDS_WARNONLY ?= true so general question(s) -- is it understood that 1 and true are equivalent? should there be a standard? should the ref manual be enhanced, or should the above layers clean themselves up? They are all correct. Accepted values are 1, yes, true Note - for this variable only. For consistency with other boolean type variables I'd suggest sticking to 1. wait ... so those three synonyms are equivalent for only that one variable? eww ... rday -- Robert P. J. Day Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA http://crashcourse.ca Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday LinkedIn: http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Re: [yocto] BB_DANGLINGAPPENDS_WARNONLY = 1 or true?
On Monday 04 November 2013 13:54:24 Robert P. J. Day wrote: On Mon, 4 Nov 2013, Paul Eggleton wrote: On Sunday 03 November 2013 12:49:16 Khem Raj wrote: On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 3:27 AM, Robert P. J. Day rpj...@crashcourse.ca wrote: (i can see it's going to be that kind of weekend.) ref manual reads: BB_DANGLINGAPPENDS_WARNONLY = 1 but some layers define: meta-linaro/meta-aarch64/conf/layer.conf:BB_DANGLINGAPPENDS_WARNONLY = true meta-linaro/meta-linaro-toolchain/conf/layer.conf:BB_DANGLINGAPPENDS_W ARN ONLY = true meta-linaro/meta-linaro/conf/layer.conf:BB_DANGLINGAPPENDS_WARNONLY = true poky-extras/meta-kernel-dev/conf/layer.conf:BB_DANGLINGAPPENDS_WARNONL Y ?= true so general question(s) -- is it understood that 1 and true are equivalent? should there be a standard? should the ref manual be enhanced, or should the above layers clean themselves up? They are all correct. Accepted values are 1, yes, true Note - for this variable only. For consistency with other boolean type variables I'd suggest sticking to 1. wait ... so those three synonyms are equivalent for only that one variable? eww ... That's the way it has been coded in this instance I'm afraid, yes. Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Re: [yocto] BB_DANGLINGAPPENDS_WARNONLY = 1 or true?
On Nov 4, 2013, at 10:47 AM, Paul Eggleton paul.eggle...@linux.intel.com wrote: On Sunday 03 November 2013 12:49:16 Khem Raj wrote: On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 3:27 AM, Robert P. J. Day rpj...@crashcourse.ca wrote: (i can see it's going to be that kind of weekend.) ref manual reads: BB_DANGLINGAPPENDS_WARNONLY = 1 but some layers define: meta-linaro/meta-aarch64/conf/layer.conf:BB_DANGLINGAPPENDS_WARNONLY = true meta-linaro/meta-linaro-toolchain/conf/layer.conf:BB_DANGLINGAPPENDS_WARN ONLY = true meta-linaro/meta-linaro/conf/layer.conf:BB_DANGLINGAPPENDS_WARNONLY = true poky-extras/meta-kernel-dev/conf/layer.conf:BB_DANGLINGAPPENDS_WARNONLY ?= true so general question(s) -- is it understood that 1 and true are equivalent? should there be a standard? should the ref manual be enhanced, or should the above layers clean themselves up? They are all correct. Accepted values are 1, yes, true Note - for this variable only. For consistency with other boolean type variables I'd suggest sticking to 1”. may be it should be deprecated slowly for other values. ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Re: [yocto] BB_DANGLINGAPPENDS_WARNONLY = 1 or true?
On Sat, Nov 2, 2013 at 3:27 AM, Robert P. J. Day rpj...@crashcourse.ca wrote: (i can see it's going to be that kind of weekend.) ref manual reads: BB_DANGLINGAPPENDS_WARNONLY = 1 but some layers define: meta-linaro/meta-aarch64/conf/layer.conf:BB_DANGLINGAPPENDS_WARNONLY = true meta-linaro/meta-linaro-toolchain/conf/layer.conf:BB_DANGLINGAPPENDS_WARNONLY = true meta-linaro/meta-linaro/conf/layer.conf:BB_DANGLINGAPPENDS_WARNONLY = true poky-extras/meta-kernel-dev/conf/layer.conf:BB_DANGLINGAPPENDS_WARNONLY ?= true so general question(s) -- is it understood that 1 and true are equivalent? should there be a standard? should the ref manual be enhanced, or should the above layers clean themselves up? They are all correct. Accepted values are 1, yes, true rday -- Robert P. J. Day Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA http://crashcourse.ca Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday LinkedIn: http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Re: [yocto] BB_DANGLINGAPPENDS_WARNONLY
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Rifenbark, Scott M scott.m.rifenb...@intel.com wrote: Can anyone out there offer more information on this variable? Wondering whether this should be documented in the glossary. By default bitbake will throw an error if there exists a *.bbappend recipe for which there is no corresponding *.bb recipe. Setting BB_DANGLINGAPPENDS_WARNONLY will change this to a warning instead. It's usually a sign the base recipe's version has been bumped and you now need to update your bbappend to match or the base recipe has been removed. ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Re: [yocto] BB_DANGLINGAPPENDS_WARNONLY
Good information... thanks! -Original Message- From: Trevor Woerner [mailto:twoer...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 1:06 PM To: Rifenbark, Scott M Cc: yocto@yoctoproject.org Subject: Re: [yocto] BB_DANGLINGAPPENDS_WARNONLY On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Rifenbark, Scott M scott.m.rifenb...@intel.com wrote: Can anyone out there offer more information on this variable? Wondering whether this should be documented in the glossary. By default bitbake will throw an error if there exists a *.bbappend recipe for which there is no corresponding *.bb recipe. Setting BB_DANGLINGAPPENDS_WARNONLY will change this to a warning instead. It's usually a sign the base recipe's version has been bumped and you now need to update your bbappend to match or the base recipe has been removed. ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Re: [yocto] BB_DANGLINGAPPENDS_WARNONLY
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Rifenbark, Scott M scott.m.rifenb...@intel.com wrote: I can't seem to find any information on this variable other than what was offered in a bug (https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3662) filed against some stuff in the glossary in general. The information provided there by Robert P. J. Day says it is handy when layers get out of sync. Can anyone out there offer more information on this variable? Wondering whether this should be documented in the glossary. Normally, if bitbake encounters a bbappend whose recipe no longer exists, it treats this condition as fatal. This, as Robert says, often occurs if layers get out of sync. For example, if oe-core bumps a recipe version and the old one no longer exists, but the other layer hasn't updated to the new version yet. It being fatal is a sane default, as it's important to realize when your changes are no longer being applied. The variable you mention changes the behavior to a warning instead. -- Christopher Larson ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Re: [yocto] BB_DANGLINGAPPENDS_WARNONLY
Thanks. Sounds like it would be useful to document this variable. From: kerg...@gmail.com [mailto:kerg...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Chris Larson Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 1:10 PM To: Rifenbark, Scott M Cc: yocto@yoctoproject.org Subject: Re: [yocto] BB_DANGLINGAPPENDS_WARNONLY On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Rifenbark, Scott M scott.m.rifenb...@intel.commailto:scott.m.rifenb...@intel.com wrote: I can't seem to find any information on this variable other than what was offered in a bug (https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3662) filed against some stuff in the glossary in general. The information provided there by Robert P. J. Day says it is handy when layers get out of sync. Can anyone out there offer more information on this variable? Wondering whether this should be documented in the glossary. Normally, if bitbake encounters a bbappend whose recipe no longer exists, it treats this condition as fatal. This, as Robert says, often occurs if layers get out of sync. For example, if oe-core bumps a recipe version and the old one no longer exists, but the other layer hasn't updated to the new version yet. It being fatal is a sane default, as it's important to realize when your changes are no longer being applied. The variable you mention changes the behavior to a warning instead. -- Christopher Larson ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
