From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net ([213.165.64.23]) by linuxtogo.org with smtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PlMFJ-00015T-C0 for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Fri, 04 Feb 2011 15:02:45 +0100 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 04 Feb 2011 14:01:47 -0000 Received: from p4FE0FB3C.dip.t-dialin.net (EHLO localhost.localdomain) [79.224.251.60] by mail.gmx.net (mp057) with SMTP; 04 Feb 2011 15:01:47 +0100 X-Authenticated: #62780362 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/hWyp3Zgnh80Hdsiym/QUkKU9J6uYdzmPBoPa+Vk 727g5zpEae4I5E From: Andreas Mueller To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2011 14:58:18 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.2 (Linux/2.6.34.7-56.fc13.i686.PAE; KDE/4.4.5; i686; ; ) References: <201101271038.18945.ml@vdm-design.de> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <201102041458.18471.schnitzeltony@gmx.de> X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Subject: Re: bitbake does not fail when QA issues encountered X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 14:02:45 -0000 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Friday 04 February 2011 14:10:33 Frans Meulenbroeks wrote: > 2011/2/4 Otavio Salvador : > > On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 09:57, Frans Meulenbroeks > > wrote: > >> Actually I did not react on the libtool forcing upon everyone, but on > >> the QA errors (where this thread was about). > >> That was also the cause of the ostrich remark (which was definitely > >> not aimed at you in person, but more a general comment, triggered by > >> the fact that I have some experience with projects being outsourced to > >> an unnamed country where a bug report also could be "repaired" by > >> removing the message or the the symptom instead of tackling the root > >> cause). > >> > >> What I see is a lack of interest in fixing the existing QA errors. > >> I've sent out a few error reports to the list a while ago, (on recipes > >> that I feel not comfortable with), but unfortunately that did not > >> result in any action :-( > > > > I think we ought to FAIL on QA errors. Distros can ignore the errors > > if they want but OE as a whole cannot do that. > > I tend to agree with this. > Actually it would be nice if insane.bbclass would allow a way to > specify which tests you want to do. My suggestion: Run alI tests but make it configurable what causes just warnings and what causes errors (not too many options e.g. all QA cause errors or warning). There are different roles: OE-Users do not want the build to be broken - images with QA errors might run without errors. OE developers might appreciate to get a hard error for the package currently working on or for test builds. Andreas