From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1RdfpV-0001r2-Gp for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Thu, 22 Dec 2011 11:24:53 +0100 Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 22 Dec 2011 02:17:45 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,315,1320652800"; d="scan'208";a="99185943" Received: from unknown (HELO helios.localnet) ([10.252.122.57]) by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 22 Dec 2011 02:17:44 -0800 From: Paul Eggleton To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 10:17:43 +0000 Message-ID: <1965049.NZCOpGhGnY@helios> Organization: Intel Corporation User-Agent: KMail/4.7.4 (Linux/3.0.0-14-generic-pae; KDE/4.7.4; i686; ; ) In-Reply-To: <4EF22C79.7080906@windriver.com> References: <4EF228C9.6070606@linux.intel.com> <4EF22C79.7080906@windriver.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/1] [RESEND]Create a script for SUMMARY audit in recipes X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 10:24:53 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On Wednesday 21 December 2011 12:59:05 Mark Hatle wrote: > On 12/21/11 12:43 PM, Saul Wold wrote: > > Which is why I think this issue is cropping up. So, then the proposal > > should really be to add SUMMARY to all recipes and initially make it a > > warning for now if non-existent SUMMARY as with DESCRIPTION and then > > remove the existing SUMMARY = ${PN}-${PV} ...?? > > > > The audit would then be the list of warnings which later becomes error > > I agree, this should become some kind of an audit warning, so we can improve > the quality of the recipe information. I'm not sure I want it to be an > error though as it may impact folks with existing OE recipes... Do we want to be showing this warning to everyone or should it just be part of a class you can enable (e.g. oelint.bbclass - which needs some work by the looks of it)? Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre