From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix, from userid 118) id F2A26E008D0; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 23:10:32 -0800 (PST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on yocto-www.yoctoproject.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=no version=3.3.1 X-Spam-HAM-Report: * -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no * trust * [209.85.223.178 listed in list.dnswl.org] * -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] * 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily * valid * -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature * 0.5 RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM RBL: SORBS: sender is a spam source * [209.85.223.178 listed in dnsbl.sorbs.net] Received: from mail-io0-f178.google.com (mail-io0-f178.google.com [209.85.223.178]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5A2AE00826 for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 23:10:30 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-io0-f178.google.com with SMTP id j18so25278676ioe.2 for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 23:10:30 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=intel-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to:references :organization:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=V8wGNNj0kzrFtofTJ4y8e7ap5v7t50eGWc6bippMrwA=; b=e2o8BWcq9rp9j+jJ7FXZmjdBvh7gNqbC/WEjsT40A6LHMB4IgjBbwcdhaTadS3rIeg 4pbUzyxRnD5sK0EFsYBdRZT23dQTG1UysOXMAAuV5OpyVupA80GJPQCETYRwP/+sDU9u dZZd2MkyCBNOPPwQaAu8hMHoefkp/G5EQ5NEEy+rRAAA/VXju27P/LcL9DO8lrNNk5WB UAgCDDw/Eujsurdkkik7T34QDmlYPRysZju/8Ttsq/azNkbn3ZpwssQUg7byZu98Remg V3qgPqgVfbSAtT8WM1DTlHvC8fW1j9qP9XiKToJp6L/AORCRR/aF4ZhW+MH7rKaPfRnm VmLg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to :references:organization:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=V8wGNNj0kzrFtofTJ4y8e7ap5v7t50eGWc6bippMrwA=; b=qyqAWOmflL8dWCMJXEyzGGbFi42XbiLD7zM3XEJccLrlOz8RcKF/wqZmDsjbkrUp5w bSSruK2D4g4KpSIlBqfNMsA5NgM/F/oRLDLoKrrFTaf+SRl8jcrdeudp/UZ+mwMK4ln/ BMO6oBRzkVu/V8Pd/1iJNN+Yi8Xn4wbsUQsCEzYqXyMDNkiUxlfoPqUUo4jgWmASbW4A TU7+RQIau4YYpqXL9yg4FjPEx4A7inOcMoubUgw9j7D17mFP7AaPVHA+DhKv/xp2pAAj SDTTh0nsFmHUFmQgaDmq7R9B+cBgOdYbiaxl86+fohNsfSeuFlFmJ5sX5SQFMSdvbpIJ UyGw== X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39mwaGakrl+WfyjLNHeamOg9EuIS8L0iwoprIwcQmThPzLHPvx8A2whzkPLR7RFrz85F X-Received: by 10.107.47.162 with SMTP id v34mr7035769iov.52.1488352230173; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 23:10:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from pohly-mobl1 (p5DE8E037.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [93.232.224.55]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n2sm1822422ion.50.2017.02.28.23.10.27 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 28 Feb 2017 23:10:28 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <1488352225.7785.83.camel@intel.com> From: Patrick Ohly To: Richard Purdie Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2017 08:10:25 +0100 In-Reply-To: <1488340816.24526.26.camel@linuxfoundation.org> References: <1487625169-22282-1-git-send-email-anibal.limon@linux.intel.com> <1488312568.7785.73.camel@intel.com> <1488340816.24526.26.camel@linuxfoundation.org> Organization: Intel GmbH, Dornacher Strasse 1, D-85622 Feldkirchen/Munich X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.9-1+b1 Mime-Version: 1.0 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 X-BeenThere: yocto@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of all things Yocto Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2017 07:10:33 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Wed, 2017-03-01 at 04:00 +0000, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Tue, 2017-02-28 at 21:09 +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote: > > On Mon, 2017-02-20 at 15:12 -0600, Aníbal Limón wrote: > > > > > > common.test_signatures: Test executed in BSP and DISTRO layers to > > > review > > > doesn't comes with recipes that changes the signatures. > > I have a question about the goal for this test: is it meant to detect > > layers which incorrectly change the signatures of allarch recipes or > > recipes which share the same tune flags with other machines? > > > > Let's take MACHINE=edison as an example. > > The test is not for these things. Its using the sstate signatures for > something different compared to those other tests. > > The idea is that if you have a set of layers and generate the > signatures for world, then you add say a BSP layer but do not select > that MACHINE, the signatures should remain unchanged. That's useful too, of course. 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? -- 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. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-io0-f177.google.com (mail-io0-f177.google.com [209.85.223.177]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61860719A8 for ; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 07:10:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-io0-f177.google.com with SMTP id l7so25253325ioe.3 for ; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 23:10:30 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=intel-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to:references :organization:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=V8wGNNj0kzrFtofTJ4y8e7ap5v7t50eGWc6bippMrwA=; b=e2o8BWcq9rp9j+jJ7FXZmjdBvh7gNqbC/WEjsT40A6LHMB4IgjBbwcdhaTadS3rIeg 4pbUzyxRnD5sK0EFsYBdRZT23dQTG1UysOXMAAuV5OpyVupA80GJPQCETYRwP/+sDU9u dZZd2MkyCBNOPPwQaAu8hMHoefkp/G5EQ5NEEy+rRAAA/VXju27P/LcL9DO8lrNNk5WB UAgCDDw/Eujsurdkkik7T34QDmlYPRysZju/8Ttsq/azNkbn3ZpwssQUg7byZu98Remg V3qgPqgVfbSAtT8WM1DTlHvC8fW1j9qP9XiKToJp6L/AORCRR/aF4ZhW+MH7rKaPfRnm VmLg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to :references:organization:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=V8wGNNj0kzrFtofTJ4y8e7ap5v7t50eGWc6bippMrwA=; b=de4FvjkpJLI37QmD+a3ZqE164AXvN2MyDVdz4tUSKK88EzVZDplOLPurrADpF/VbIK wLWJsQ4uMnKw9Fyga61b7NN1+RHk0gUcYKXkJfGLC1LUZQY0M7LM9WcAOd3Xun73a23v mrqkwPip5RR/ybBgyKR0zSACzeIFZupDC6dD0sVv2CqDwPCRFjSlsxh3znuYF9BYeDeL tABYLOsSOaKhrXbH4m4KwbnU1jMxupeoLZ+44uGFBB3VY3CX+LFigABuzUYWitDS/4Zn lqHC1rilsTf5SnIOLdKsCZQl9CJAb0gL5LTwyltvQJVq3GXDIoxRlLTQcGqjr/r5fovZ bMCA== X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39k7peILgjJ+vPXOgkWizomXYca+G3Ck4cv07PXboyOCN4GXrmIAtKr5B6sVC1JkuFcM X-Received: by 10.107.47.162 with SMTP id v34mr7035769iov.52.1488352230173; Tue, 28 Feb 2017 23:10:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from pohly-mobl1 (p5DE8E037.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [93.232.224.55]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n2sm1822422ion.50.2017.02.28.23.10.27 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 28 Feb 2017 23:10:28 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <1488352225.7785.83.camel@intel.com> From: Patrick Ohly To: Richard Purdie Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2017 08:10:25 +0100 In-Reply-To: <1488340816.24526.26.camel@linuxfoundation.org> References: <1487625169-22282-1-git-send-email-anibal.limon@linux.intel.com> <1488312568.7785.73.camel@intel.com> <1488340816.24526.26.camel@linuxfoundation.org> Organization: Intel GmbH, Dornacher Strasse 1, D-85622 Feldkirchen/Munich X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.9-1+b1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: yocto@yoctoproject.org, openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [PATCHv2] yocto-compat-layer.py: Add script to YP Compatible Layer validation X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2017 07:10:29 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Wed, 2017-03-01 at 04:00 +0000, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Tue, 2017-02-28 at 21:09 +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote: > > On Mon, 2017-02-20 at 15:12 -0600, Aníbal Limón wrote: > > > > > > common.test_signatures: Test executed in BSP and DISTRO layers to > > > review > > > doesn't comes with recipes that changes the signatures. > > I have a question about the goal for this test: is it meant to detect > > layers which incorrectly change the signatures of allarch recipes or > > recipes which share the same tune flags with other machines? > > > > Let's take MACHINE=edison as an example. > > The test is not for these things. Its using the sstate signatures for > something different compared to those other tests. > > The idea is that if you have a set of layers and generate the > signatures for world, then you add say a BSP layer but do not select > that MACHINE, the signatures should remain unchanged. That's useful too, of course. 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? -- 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.