|
Re: Proposed bitbake syntax simplification
But this 2nd example is what might be difficult to spot and most likely needs the leading space as well, right?
Especially when there is some override like
VAR2:append:machine-foo:distro-foo =
But this 2nd example is what might be difficult to spot and most likely needs the leading space as well, right?
Especially when there is some override like
VAR2:append:machine-foo:distro-foo =
|
By
Martin Jansa
·
#1349
·
|
|
Re: Proposed bitbake syntax simplification
I was just going to comment with the same idea. Much earlier in my OE journey, this bit me often and was a source of confusion.
I was just going to comment with the same idea. Much earlier in my OE journey, this bit me often and was a source of confusion.
|
By
Tim Orling
·
#1348
·
|
|
Re: Proposed bitbake syntax simplification
Hi All,
I would also emit a (switchable on / off) warning for VAR_append and VAR:append without a space when VAR contains spaces already i.e.:
VAR = "opt1 opt2"
VAR:append = "opt3" --> warning
VAR2
Hi All,
I would also emit a (switchable on / off) warning for VAR_append and VAR:append without a space when VAR contains spaces already i.e.:
VAR = "opt1 opt2"
VAR:append = "opt3" --> warning
VAR2
|
By
Petr Nechaev
·
#1347
·
|
|
Re: Proposed bitbake syntax simplification
Hi Richard,
Using the old syntax :D?
I'm all for removing potential areas of confusion, so +1.
On that topic, if I'm not mistaken, the same applies to:
FOO:.*{append, prepend,
Hi Richard,
Using the old syntax :D?
I'm all for removing potential areas of confusion, so +1.
On that topic, if I'm not mistaken, the same applies to:
FOO:.*{append, prepend,
|
By
Quentin Schulz
·
#1346
·
|
|
Re: Proposed bitbake syntax simplification
Lovely!
--
Marco
By
Marco Cavallini
·
#1345
·
|
|
Re: Proposed bitbake syntax simplification
I think this is a good change, since it clarifies the functionality and removes undefined behavior that sort of seemed to achieve a valid operation.
I think this is a good change, since it clarifies the functionality and removes undefined behavior that sort of seemed to achieve a valid operation.
|
By
Khem Raj
·
#1344
·
|
|
Re: Proposed bitbake syntax simplification
Agreed, this combination isn't really needed and it's easy to fix relatively few cases which slipped into various layers.
LGTM
Agreed, this combination isn't really needed and it's easy to fix relatively few cases which slipped into various layers.
LGTM
|
By
Martin Jansa
·
#1343
·
|
|
Proposed bitbake syntax simplification
Hi All,
I shared a patch on the bitbake mailing list to make some syntax generate
warnings, specifically things of the form:
XXX_append += "YYY"
XXX_prepend += "YYY"
XXX_remove += "YYY"
and the ?=,
Hi All,
I shared a patch on the bitbake mailing list to make some syntax generate
warnings, specifically things of the form:
XXX_append += "YYY"
XXX_prepend += "YYY"
XXX_remove += "YYY"
and the ?=,
|
By
Richard Purdie
·
#1342
·
|
|
Re: Default branch names in git urls
I am not saying there are no solution but it was saying was to reduce the amount of customizations and default to common protocols which would help
I am not saying there are no solution but it was saying was to reduce the amount of customizations and default to common protocols which would help
|
By
Khem Raj
·
#1341
·
|
|
Re: Default branch names in git urls
Isn't this all already handled by:
https://git.openembedded.org/openembedded-core/commit/?id=abb8895d5b42a5dc171360a261a2652acd14ee7e
?
Isn't this all already handled by:
https://git.openembedded.org/openembedded-core/commit/?id=abb8895d5b42a5dc171360a261a2652acd14ee7e
?
|
By
Andre McCurdy
·
#1340
·
|
|
Re: Default branch names in git urls
<richard.purdie@...> wrote:
I understand that, however, the reality is that organizations have IT
teams which are
catering to a wider set of security needs and have been
<richard.purdie@...> wrote:
I understand that, however, the reality is that organizations have IT
teams which are
catering to a wider set of security needs and have been
|
By
Khem Raj
·
#1339
·
|
|
Re: Default branch names in git urls
Some servers out there (e.g. our own git.yoctoproject.org) have slightly
different git and https urls so this isn't as simple as you'd think.
The security offered by https isn't as great as it first
Some servers out there (e.g. our own git.yoctoproject.org) have slightly
different git and https urls so this isn't as simple as you'd think.
The security offered by https isn't as great as it first
|
By
Richard Purdie
·
#1338
·
|
|
Re: Default branch names in git urls
Can we change bitbake fetcher to default to https instead git
anonymous protocol as fallback? this will be good security measure
too.
<richard.purdie@...> wrote:
Can we change bitbake fetcher to default to https instead git
anonymous protocol as fallback? this will be good security measure
too.
<richard.purdie@...> wrote:
|
By
Khem Raj
·
#1337
·
|
|
Re: Default branch names in git urls
wrote:
I've sent out a couple of patches for bitbake, one which does the remapping and
a second which adds the warning. Testing would be appreciated before I merge
them (I need to focus on master
wrote:
I've sent out a couple of patches for bitbake, one which does the remapping and
a second which adds the warning. Testing would be appreciated before I merge
them (I need to focus on master
|
By
Richard Purdie
·
#1336
·
|
|
Re: Default branch names in git urls
I think we put a warning on master and forwards but not older bitbakes.
Cheers,
Richard
I think we put a warning on master and forwards but not older bitbakes.
Cheers,
Richard
|
By
Richard Purdie
·
#1335
·
|
|
Re: Default branch names in git urls
I totally agree with that. I still think we should also warn out so we don't have to maintain this magic quirk forever.
Andrei
I totally agree with that. I still think we should also warn out so we don't have to maintain this magic quirk forever.
Andrei
|
By
Andrei Gherzan
·
#1334
·
|
|
Re: Default branch names in git urls
The brownouts are already happening, got 20+ failed jenkins jobs over night, because they failed to fetch various metadata layers over git:// from github. And hopefully my understanding of the
The brownouts are already happening, got 20+ failed jenkins jobs over night, because they failed to fetch various metadata layers over git:// from github. And hopefully my understanding of the
|
By
Martin Jansa
·
#1333
·
|
|
Re: Default branch names in git urls
Thanks for reporting this, it helps to know this is happening as we'll probably
start seeing odd error reports for the brownouts.
I've updated the conversion script I mentioned earlier in this thread
Thanks for reporting this, it helps to know this is happening as we'll probably
start seeing odd error reports for the brownouts.
I've updated the conversion script I mentioned earlier in this thread
|
By
Richard Purdie
·
#1332
·
|
|
Re: Default branch names in git urls
The difference is that only few upstream repos are renaming master to main while removing the master branch completely and the change of the default branch to main affects only newly created repos on
The difference is that only few upstream repos are renaming master to main while removing the master branch completely and the change of the default branch to main affects only newly created repos on
|
By
Martin Jansa
·
#1331
·
|
|
Re: Default branch names in git urls
The issue I think is the size of it. When you consider just the main
branch for oe-core, this isn't an issue, but with all the release
branches people are still on, with all the various layers some
The issue I think is the size of it. When you consider just the main
branch for oe-core, this isn't an issue, but with all the release
branches people are still on, with all the various layers some
|
By
Eilís Ní Fhlannagáin
·
#1330
·
|