[oe] strange error when coding a bbclass

Koen Kooi koen at dominion.kabel.utwente.nl
Tue Jun 12 14:50:37 UTC 2007

Hash: SHA1

Richard Purdie schreef:
> On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 11:18 -0300, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
>> On 6/12/07, Richard Purdie <rpurdie at rpsys.net> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2007-06-11 at 16:49 -0300, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
>>> addtask inserts a dependency so if you add
>>> addtask blah before do_configure
>>> You are saying that say "patch" must run, followed by "blah" followed by
>>> "configure". Bitbake will check the task dependencies and build them if
>>> they're missing. If a subsequent task has a timestamp older than its
>>> dependencies it will rerun them too (just on a per recipe basis at
>>> present). There have been requests to extend that so if you rebuild gtk
>>> +, all the gtk apps will rebuild and we will probably optionally allow
>>> that in due course (it should be easy with the new bitbake core).
>> I've noticed that and it makes sense. What I really cannot understand
>> is how a very simple function that does anything but a print can break
>> that packages?
> Try "bitbake busybox", then "bitbake busybox -c package -f". You will
> find that either it will fail outright or the busybox packages will
> become corrupt (empty). This is because install must always be (re)run
> before package. I suspect you're seeing side-affects from that area of
> breakage (and you're not the only one)...

Didn't we have a proposed fix for that?



Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)


More information about the Openembedded-devel mailing list