From: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Patrick Ohly <patrick.ohly@intel.com>
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 15:12:19 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1488381139.24526.30.camel@linuxfoundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1488352225.7785.83.camel@intel.com>
On Wed, 2017-03-01 at 08:10 +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> 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?
Right now its not but I'd consider it. The question is can we write an
easy generic test for it, and also clearly phrase the criteria in the
list of compliance questions with a binary yes/no answer?
Cheers,
Richard
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Patrick Ohly <patrick.ohly@intel.com>
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 15:12:19 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1488381139.24526.30.camel@linuxfoundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1488352225.7785.83.camel@intel.com>
On Wed, 2017-03-01 at 08:10 +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> 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?
Right now its not but I'd consider it. The question is can we write an
easy generic test for it, and also clearly phrase the criteria in the
list of compliance questions with a binary yes/no answer?
Cheers,
Richard
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-03-01 15:12 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 ` Richard Purdie [this message]
2017-03-01 15:12 ` Richard Purdie
2017-03-01 15:51 ` [OE-core] " Patrick Ohly
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=1488381139.24526.30.camel@linuxfoundation.org \
--to=richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org \
--cc=patrick.ohly@intel.com \
--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.