From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-iy0-f175.google.com ([209.85.210.175]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PhqaQ-0003qs-LP for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 22:38:03 +0100 Received: by iyj18 with SMTP id 18so6144551iyj.6 for ; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 13:37:14 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=jSBlb/uENgtuYq8zqovEZZZE9NE7G23wTqxruzn542g=; b=k2qGBBruXoJVPfPZHLbwEajQR/T4gSlkHTnlSMpfpSXojfRsm8l+aVO01kYVwI4FaZ jpGmK30WO47x/tnbI+FLGj4bq7KA8KN5sBIlbZmWLeOjc5VmdS2hCXE51sPR4unV3VxA hMs7SV19VnpilyugqbLS1PyzYI4vg87WFaiz0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=bC7ioBcFH2cLrTK32TiZ1o1+zr26KN4A80Ei5WbD8m+Bh/Ik/5M2ElGJNhcMbCseBx +aU3nosNdWxjWhj2nu0SelqaAax7GSsazlhvPgQ9mk3Ymk3qBkKYvlSmVb61T/RADw+2 9LmGTPyHluq2t5sOy/c3htRvTYDTUsMqesL0E= Received: by 10.42.228.133 with SMTP id je5mr7336515icb.407.1295991434510; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 13:37:14 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.42.230.71 with HTTP; Tue, 25 Jan 2011 13:36:54 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <131E5DFBE7373E4C8D813795A6AA7F08032A16A440@dlee06.ent.ti.com> From: Khem Raj Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 13:36:54 -0800 Message-ID: To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org 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: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 21:38:04 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 12:58 PM, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote: > 2011/1/25 Maupin, Chase : >> All, >> >> I have noticed that when building packages such as perl that while my bu= ild will report success and no errors, the return status from the bitbake c= ommand was "1". =C2=A0I was able to produce this by doing: >> >> MACHINE=3Dam37x-evm bitbake perl >> >> After bitbake completed I saw: >> >> NOTE: Tasks Summary: Attempted 851 tasks of which 0 didn't need to be re= run and 0 failed. >> >> but checking $? yields a return status of "1". >> >> I looked into the log and noticed a lot of messages like: >> >> ERROR: QA Issue with db: package db contains bad RPATH >> >> My understanding is that recent fixes to libtool 2.4 prevent these error= s but I am using an older version of Angstrom which pins to libtool 2.2. = =C2=A0I also have found this issue with the Arago distribution which likewi= se uses libtool 2.2. >> >> So my question here is whether bitbake should be failing when it encount= ers these QA issues with a bad RPATH and exiting? >> >> If not then should the return status be "1"? =C2=A0This causes issues wh= en using a script that issues builds and then checks the return status for = success or failure. =C2=A0If the QA issues are deemed acceptable (or should= be warnings) then I would expect the return status to not indicate a failu= re. >> >> I have attached a log of my build for reference >> >> As another interesting side note which I don't know is related or not, w= hen building Arago with bitbake 1.10.2 the return status is "1". =C2=A0When= building the same Arago metadata with bitbake 1.8.19 the return status is = "0". =C2=A0What is strange here is that since Arago uses a slightly older v= ersion of the OE metadata it is not seeing the RPATH errors reported above = (the check isn't in the insane.bbclass for Arago yet). =C2=A0So for some re= ason bitbake 1.8.19 says everything went fine and bitbake 1.10.2 reports a = status of "1" even though there is no reported error. =C2=A0I'm not sure if= this is related to the above in any way or if this is a separate issue. >> >> Sincerely, >> Chase Maupin >> > > I've seen this on other places as well. > I'd say if a package has a QA issue the build of that package should > fail, because the resulting output is defnitely not OK. > yes it should fail. However some may raise questions "it used to build and not it doesnt" so someone has to fix the problems quickly > Frans > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-devel mailing list > Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel >