From: Patrick Ohly <patrick.ohly@intel.com>
To: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: yocto@yoctoproject.org, openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCHv2] yocto-compat-layer.py: Add script to YP Compatible Layer validation
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2017 16:51:03 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1488383463.7785.165.camel@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1488381139.24526.30.camel@linuxfoundation.org>
On Wed, 2017-03-01 at 15:12 +0000, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-03-01 at 08:10 +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> > Is the "build single distro for different machines" scenario that I
> > described part of the Yocto Compliance 2.0? Should there be tests for
> > it?
>
> Right now its not
Okay, so the goal is a bit less ambitious than I had thought. I wonder
whether that's useful, because at least the problems Ostro and AGL (at
least as far as I understood it from lurking on their mailing list) had
only happened when trying to combine multiple BSP layers *and* actually
using the different machines in the same distro.
> but I'd consider it.
At least I'd find that useful - not sure about others ;-}
> The question is can we write an
> easy generic test for it,
It's a bit more complicated than the existing tests, but I think it is
doable.
> and also clearly phrase the criteria in the
> list of compliance questions with a binary yes/no answer?
Does the BSP layer only modify machine-specific packages and only when
the MACHINE(s) defined by the BSP layer are selected? [yes/no]
The "only when" part is covered by the existing tests (because they keep
MACHINE constant). The missing part is comparing different MACHINE
sstamps.
--
Best Regards, Patrick Ohly
The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although
I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way
represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak
on behalf of Intel on this matter.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Patrick Ohly <patrick.ohly@intel.com>
To: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: yocto@yoctoproject.org, openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] yocto-compat-layer.py: Add script to YP Compatible Layer validation
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2017 16:51:03 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1488383463.7785.165.camel@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1488381139.24526.30.camel@linuxfoundation.org>
On Wed, 2017-03-01 at 15:12 +0000, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-03-01 at 08:10 +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> > Is the "build single distro for different machines" scenario that I
> > described part of the Yocto Compliance 2.0? Should there be tests for
> > it?
>
> Right now its not
Okay, so the goal is a bit less ambitious than I had thought. I wonder
whether that's useful, because at least the problems Ostro and AGL (at
least as far as I understood it from lurking on their mailing list) had
only happened when trying to combine multiple BSP layers *and* actually
using the different machines in the same distro.
> but I'd consider it.
At least I'd find that useful - not sure about others ;-}
> The question is can we write an
> easy generic test for it,
It's a bit more complicated than the existing tests, but I think it is
doable.
> and also clearly phrase the criteria in the
> list of compliance questions with a binary yes/no answer?
Does the BSP layer only modify machine-specific packages and only when
the MACHINE(s) defined by the BSP layer are selected? [yes/no]
The "only when" part is covered by the existing tests (because they keep
MACHINE constant). The missing part is comparing different MACHINE
sstamps.
--
Best Regards, Patrick Ohly
The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although
I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way
represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak
on behalf of Intel on this matter.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-03-01 15:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-02-20 21:12 [PATCHv2] yocto-compat-layer.py: Add script to YP Compatible Layer validation Aníbal Limón
2017-02-28 20:09 ` [OE-core] " Patrick Ohly
2017-02-28 20:09 ` Patrick Ohly
2017-02-28 20:33 ` [OE-core] " Aníbal Limón
2017-02-28 20:33 ` Aníbal Limón
2017-02-28 22:17 ` [OE-core] " Patrick Ohly
2017-02-28 22:17 ` Patrick Ohly
2017-03-01 4:00 ` [OE-core] " Richard Purdie
2017-03-01 4:00 ` Richard Purdie
2017-03-01 7:10 ` [OE-core] " Patrick Ohly
2017-03-01 7:10 ` Patrick Ohly
2017-03-01 15:12 ` [OE-core] " Richard Purdie
2017-03-01 15:12 ` Richard Purdie
2017-03-01 15:51 ` Patrick Ohly [this message]
2017-03-01 15:51 ` Patrick Ohly
2017-03-01 16:01 ` [OE-core] " Richard Purdie
2017-03-01 16:01 ` Richard Purdie
2017-03-01 16:47 ` [OE-core] " Patrick Ohly
2017-03-01 16:47 ` Patrick Ohly
2017-05-08 13:36 ` [OE-core] " Patrick Ohly
2017-05-08 13:36 ` Patrick Ohly
2017-05-08 15:14 ` [OE-core] " Aníbal Limón
2017-05-08 15:14 ` Aníbal Limón
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1488383463.7785.165.camel@intel.com \
--to=patrick.ohly@intel.com \
--cc=openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org \
--cc=richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=yocto@yoctoproject.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.