From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga03.intel.com ([143.182.124.21]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1RdRFE-0001yL-Dl for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 19:50:28 +0100 Received: from azsmga002.ch.intel.com ([10.2.17.35]) by azsmga101.ch.intel.com with ESMTP; 21 Dec 2011 10:43:22 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,315,1320652800"; d="scan'208";a="49488122" Received: from unknown (HELO [10.255.12.90]) ([10.255.12.90]) by AZSMGA002.ch.intel.com with ESMTP; 21 Dec 2011 10:43:22 -0800 Message-ID: <4EF228C9.6070606@linux.intel.com> Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 10:43:21 -0800 From: Saul Wold User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:7.0) Gecko/20110927 Thunderbird/7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer References: <4EF17275.6080202@linux.intel.com> <4EF22273.3000007@linux.intel.com> In-Reply-To: <4EF22273.3000007@linux.intel.com> 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: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 18:50:28 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 12/21/2011 10:16 AM, Joshua Lock wrote: > On 20/12/11 22:10, Wang, Shane wrote: >> Saul Wold wrote on 2011-12-21: >> >>> On 12/20/2011 08:32 PM, Shane Wang wrote: >>>> Here is the script to check which recipe provides SUMMARY and which >>>> doesnot. For those which do not, maintainer should add or update to a >>>> meaningful summary for HOB to display in description. >>>> >>> Shane, >>> >>> I guess I am not understanding why this is needed. Why can't we use >>> DESCRIPTION which is a required entry? Use the first X Characters of >>> DESCRIPTION? > > There's a huge difference between a purposefully crafted 72 character > summary and a free-for all description field that will have to be > chopped to be displayed in the GUI. I originally chose summary as a > succinct 72 characters would fit much better in the available UI. > > Aside: according to the Yocto docs the SUMMARY field should fall back to > DESCRIPTION anyway. It's just that right now we do that at the package > back-end level for each package back-end. > Seems that's the other way around as coded, DESCRIPTION falls back to SUMMARY meta/conf/bitbake.conf:DESCRIPTION ?= "${SUMMARY}" 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 Sau! > >> OK, then HOB has a bug. To use DESCRIPTION instead of SUMMARY. I am OK with that. >> Josh, Dongxiao, did you see any problem if I change that? > > I think it's the wrong solution. > > Joshua