On Thu, 2016-10-13 at 17:38 -0500, gm...@reliableembeddedsystems.com
> Hi,
> On 2016-10-13 16:29, Lock, Joshua G wrote:
> > 
> > Can you help me understand why you needed to create this patch?
> > 
> > We've run into some issues recently where toolchains we expected to
> > be
> > built weren't and the PublishArtifacts buildstep failing because
> > they're missing is useful. With this change we'll no longer get
> > that,
> > right?
> Yes that's right (and not intended).
> I would hope that you'll be able to detect such kind of problems
> before 
> the PublishArtifacts buildstep because there should be some error in 
> previous steps. The toolchain did not build!

Indeed, but software is buggy. This happened very recently on the
public builders:


Toolchains *were* being built but they were being unstaged from the
deploy directory by an unfortunate bug. We had errors logged due to
failing cp the buildstep didn't fail.

> I made this patch because I just want to build a 64 bit toolchain as 
> opposed to both (like I used to do with some older version of Y-AB)
> and 
> don't want the PublishArtifacts step to fail just because there is
> no 
> 32-bit toolchain. There is no 32 bit toolchain on purpose.
> As a bonus the patch also copies md5sums and friends over and not
> just 
> the .sh files.

This is a reasonable goal, but something I'd rather see addressed in
the proposed PublishArtifacts rewrite. As we're trying to release morty
right now I'd like to avoid changes to the AB behaviour until after the


yocto mailing list

Reply via email to