Date   

[PATCH 0/3] linux-yocto: consolidated pull request

Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfield@...>
 

Richard/Saul,

I've been running with these changes since before ELC, so they've had
some good soak time. The first two changes lay the ground for for some
1.1 functionality and are used by recipes in the meta-kernel-dev layer.
The changes are transparent to existing recipes.

In particular they are related to auto creating meta data for kernel
repository builds. They are enough for basic korg/defconfig builds and
limited other repository building. More changes will complete this work
shortly.

The last patch just updates the SRCREVs to pickup Khem's backported
perf tool / gcc 4.6.0 patch.

There are about 8 more pending patches that deal with some recipe
renames, cleanup and more 1.1 functionality but I wanted to get
this first set of 3 out before rebasing the rest.

Sorry about the big cross post, but these changes span quite a few
different interest groups.

cc: Khem Raj <raj.khem@...>

Pull URL: git://git.pokylinux.org/poky-contrib.git
Branch: zedd/kernel
Browse: http://git.pokylinux.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/log/?h=zedd/kernel

Thanks,
Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfield@...>
---


Bruce Ashfield (3):
linux-yocto: apply meta data to external repos
linux-yocto: safely process unbranched repositories
linux-yocto: update SRCREVs

meta/classes/kernel-yocto.bbclass | 34 +++++++++++++++-----
.../kern-tools/kern-tools-native_git.bb | 2 +-
meta/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-yocto_git.bb | 24 +++++++-------
3 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)


Re: RFC: Package exclusion

Paul Eggleton
 

Hi Beth,

On Wednesday 04 May 2011 00:08:59 Elizabeth Flanagan wrote:
Most of the issues surrounding the license field is currently on my plate
for M1.D

License tracking Build a parser to do license tracking more gracefully and
make sure all recipes are correct. (takes ~2 weeks) 1 Accept Beth Beth
M1,
Sprint D

There is currently no specification on the LICENSE field values and how
they should be parsed. I'm going to be starting that in the next week or
so. We should sync up with each other if this work is going to overlap.
Schedule some time for this week?
Yes there's definitely quite an overlap here and we should coordinate efforts.
Will catch you later on IRC to organise some time.

Cheers,
Paul

--

Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre


Re: RFC: Package exclusion

Elizabeth Flanagan <elizabeth.flanagan@...>
 

On 05/03/2011 09:00 AM, Paul Eggleton wrote:
Hi all,

As part of the 1.1 feature list I suggested a review of the
INCOMPATIBLE_LICENSE and COMMERCIAL* package exclusion mechanisms we have
within Poky. Below I've outlined my ideas and would appreciate any
comments/additions/corrections.

==== Aims ====

* Make error messages clear when user/dependencies have asked for something
to be built that can't be due to restrictions

* Ensure that exclusion system is reliable

==== Proposed implementation ====

1) Ensure all documentation of LICENSE field value syntax is clear, concise
and up-to-date (wiki and manual)

2) Go through and audit all recipes LICENSE field values to ensure that they
all conform to the specifications. This includes making sure that | (package
may be used under one of a selection of licences) and& (recipe has mixed
licences that apply to the code base, so conditions of all must be observed)
are used correctly.

3) bitbake/core changes:

* LICENSE field checking must fully parse the field and understand the
difference between | and&, and must not e.g. mark Qt as being GPLv3 only.

* Make the LICENSE validity checking more strict (given recipes have been
audited and rules are clear after above)

* Don't exclude any recipes at parse time - simply record all excluded
recipes and their runtime provides in a blacklist which also includes flags
indicating the reason for blacklisting

* Ensure all excluded licences in INCOMPATIBLE_LICENSE are valid (e.g. catch
GPL3 as apposed to GPLv3) - if not, error out

* Check when calculating dependencies if anything is scheduled to be built
that is on the blacklist - if any are, gather all of them up and then stop and
list them in an error message along with reason and depchain for each one

* Check when constructing the rootfs if anything in the runtime provides
blacklist is going to be included - if so, error out
Most of the issues surrounding the license field is currently on my plate for M1.D

License tracking Build a parser to do license tracking more gracefully and make sure all recipes are correct. (takes ~2 weeks) 1 Accept Beth Beth M1, Sprint D

There is currently no specification on the LICENSE field values and how they should be parsed. I'm going to be starting that in the next week or so. We should sync up with each other if this work is going to overlap. Schedule some time for this week?

-b


Cheers,
Paul
--
---------------
Elizabeth Flanagan
Yocto Project
Release Engineer


Re: OpenEmbedded eV membership drive

Richard Purdie
 

On Tue, 2011-05-03 at 23:15 +0200, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
2011/5/3 Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@...>
This was discussed at the last TSC meeting and we reviewed the
TSC
meeting minutes where it was recorded that:

"""
Election wise, we'll elect the seats in the order from the
board
announcement email until we have 5 elected members. We will
rely on the
board to call the first election in May.
"""

which the TSC has reminded the board about last week.

I don't think it is up to the TSC to decide on the re-election
timeframe. As it stands the TSC got a 2 month mandate. See the quote
above (from Philip's email from feb 10).
That is all I wanted to indicate.
The TSC was asked by the board to figure out the details of the election
which we did in the first meeting as requested and provided our feedback
back to the board. The board naturally has the ultimate say in this.

Cheers,

Richard


Re: OpenEmbedded eV membership drive

Frans Meulenbroeks <fransmeulenbroeks@...>
 



2011/5/3 Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@...>
On Tue, 2011-05-03 at 22:05 +0200, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
> 2011/5/3 Philip Balister <philip@...>
>
> [...]
>
>         People ask me why they should join the eV. Besides being a
>         good way to show your support for the OpenEmbedded project,
>         the Technical Steering Committee is elected by the eV members.
>
> Sorry but the current TSC is NOT elected by the eV members.

The current situation was making the best of a bad set of circumstances,
the plan is to hold elections and nothing has changed in that regard.

> Actually the board even fails to meet its own "rules" stipulated when
> they installed this interim TSC.
>
> From Philip's email from feb 10:
> This interim TSC will operate for 2 months when we shall start elections
> at two month intervals for the 5 positions on the TSC. The new elected
> TSC members will operate under the charter detailed on the wiki here
>
> http://wiki.openembedded.org/index.php/TSCCharter.
> We're now almost 3 months later and no election has been held!

This was discussed at the last TSC meeting and we reviewed the TSC
meeting minutes where it was recorded that:

"""
Election wise, we'll elect the seats in the order from the board
announcement email until we have 5 elected members. We will rely on the
board to call the first election in May.
"""

which the TSC has reminded the board about last week.

Cheers,

Richard

I don't think it is up to the TSC to decide on the re-election timeframe. As it stands the TSC got a 2 month mandate. See the quote above (from Philip's email from feb 10).
That is all I wanted to indicate.

Frans


Re: OpenEmbedded eV membership drive

Richard Purdie
 

On Tue, 2011-05-03 at 22:05 +0200, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
2011/5/3 Philip Balister <philip@...>

[...]

People ask me why they should join the eV. Besides being a
good way to show your support for the OpenEmbedded project,
the Technical Steering Committee is elected by the eV members.

Sorry but the current TSC is NOT elected by the eV members.
The current situation was making the best of a bad set of circumstances,
the plan is to hold elections and nothing has changed in that regard.

Actually the board even fails to meet its own "rules" stipulated when
they installed this interim TSC.

From Philip's email from feb 10:
This interim TSC will operate for 2 months when we shall start elections
at two month intervals for the 5 positions on the TSC. The new elected
TSC members will operate under the charter detailed on the wiki here

http://wiki.openembedded.org/index.php/TSCCharter.
We're now almost 3 months later and no election has been held!
This was discussed at the last TSC meeting and we reviewed the TSC
meeting minutes where it was recorded that:

"""
Election wise, we'll elect the seats in the order from the board
announcement email until we have 5 elected members. We will rely on the
board to call the first election in May.
"""

which the TSC has reminded the board about last week.

Cheers,

Richard


Re: [OE-core] OpenEmbedded eV membership drive

Mark Hatle <mark.hatle@...>
 

Speaking as a member of the TSC, our understanding is an election would be
called for the first position at the beginning of May. (More or less this week.)

The TSC members up for election was decided by the TSC to be in the order of the
original board announcement, with the final two members going up for election at
the same time.

--Mark

On 5/3/11 3:05 PM, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
2011/5/3 Philip Balister <philip@...>

[...]


People ask me why they should join the eV. Besides being a good way to show
your support for the OpenEmbedded project, the Technical Steering Committee
is elected by the eV members.

Sorry but the current TSC is NOT elected by the eV members.
Actually the board even fails to meet its own "rules" stipulated when they
installed this interim TSC.

From Philip's email from feb 10:

This interim TSC will operate for 2 months when we shall start elections
at two month intervals for the 5 positions on the TSC. The new elected
TSC members will operate under the charter detailed on the wiki here
http://wiki.openembedded.org/index.php/TSCCharter.

We're now almost 3 months later and no election has been held!

Frans
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@...
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core


Re: OpenEmbedded eV membership drive

Frans Meulenbroeks <fransmeulenbroeks@...>
 



2011/5/3 Philip Balister <philip@...>

[...]

People ask me why they should join the eV. Besides being a good way to show your support for the OpenEmbedded project, the Technical Steering Committee is elected by the eV members.

Sorry but the current TSC is NOT elected by the eV members.

Actually the board even fails to meet its own "rules" stipulated when they installed this interim TSC.

From Philip's email from feb 10:
This interim TSC will operate for 2 months when we shall start elections
at two month intervals for the 5 positions on the TSC. The new elected
TSC members will operate under the charter detailed on the wiki here
http://wiki.openembedded.org/index.php/TSCCharter.
We're now almost 3 months later and no election has been held!

Frans


OpenEmbedded eV membership drive

Philip Balister
 

As most of you know, there is an OpenEmbedded eV to provide an umbrella organization for handling various aspects of managing the project. There is a description here: http://wiki.openembedded.net/index.php/Organization.

One of the things we would like to do is vote in new members to the eV (for the .us guys, think 501c3). If you are interested in becoming a member, read the Organization web page and send me an email indicating your desire to become a member. Please include a short paragraph explaining who you are and how you are involved with OpenEmbedded.

After one week, I'll submit the list of names as a voting proposal to the current eV members. Or statutes provide for a one week discussion period, followed by a one week voting period for new member votes.

People ask me why they should join the eV. Besides being a good way to show your support for the OpenEmbedded project, the Technical Steering Committee is elected by the eV members.

To remain an eV member, you must attend the annual General Assembly regularly. (if you miss two consecutive meetings you become an extraordinary member with no voting rights). However, submitting a proxy counts as attending the General Assembly. The current plan is to schedule the GA at ELCE this fall.

If you have any questions, please contact me.

Philip


Notes from Tuesday, May 3rd Technical Team meeting

Fleischer, Julie N <julie.n.fleischer@...>
 

Here are the notes from the Tuesday, May 3rd Yocto Technical Team meeting.
Thanks.
- Julie

Attendees: Dave, Darren, Richard, Mark, Julie, Joshua, Saul, Tom, Beth, Jessica, Jeff Polk, Alex de Vries, Bruce, Jefro

Agenda:
1. Review 1.1 Release Criteria - See notes at https://wiki.yoctoproject.org/wiki/Yocto_Project_v1.1_Release_Criteria.
2. Review 1.0.1 Release Criteria - See notes at https://wiki.yoctoproject.org/wiki/Yocto_Project_v1.0.1_Release_Criteria.
3. Opens

-----------------------
Julie Fleischer
Open Source Technology Center
Intel Corporation


RFC: Package exclusion

Paul Eggleton
 

Hi all,

As part of the 1.1 feature list I suggested a review of the
INCOMPATIBLE_LICENSE and COMMERCIAL* package exclusion mechanisms we have
within Poky. Below I've outlined my ideas and would appreciate any
comments/additions/corrections.

==== Aims ====

* Make error messages clear when user/dependencies have asked for something
to be built that can't be due to restrictions

* Ensure that exclusion system is reliable

==== Proposed implementation ====

1) Ensure all documentation of LICENSE field value syntax is clear, concise
and up-to-date (wiki and manual)

2) Go through and audit all recipes LICENSE field values to ensure that they
all conform to the specifications. This includes making sure that | (package
may be used under one of a selection of licences) and & (recipe has mixed
licences that apply to the code base, so conditions of all must be observed)
are used correctly.

3) bitbake/core changes:

* LICENSE field checking must fully parse the field and understand the
difference between | and &, and must not e.g. mark Qt as being GPLv3 only.

* Make the LICENSE validity checking more strict (given recipes have been
audited and rules are clear after above)

* Don't exclude any recipes at parse time - simply record all excluded
recipes and their runtime provides in a blacklist which also includes flags
indicating the reason for blacklisting

* Ensure all excluded licences in INCOMPATIBLE_LICENSE are valid (e.g. catch
GPL3 as apposed to GPLv3) - if not, error out

* Check when calculating dependencies if anything is scheduled to be built
that is on the blacklist - if any are, gather all of them up and then stop and
list them in an error message along with reason and depchain for each one

* Check when constructing the rootfs if anything in the runtime provides
blacklist is going to be included - if so, error out


Some further possible extensions:

* Possibly apply similar logic to COMPATIBLE_MACHINE?

* Replace COMMERCIAL* with some more generic exclusion mechanism that allows
the reason to be defined as part of the exclusion list?

* As a helper for non-en_US users, fail on parse if user defines any of the
*LICENSE* variables as *LICENCE*? (we definitely don't want the build to
continue and just ignore this as the user might not realise what has happened)


Cheers,
Paul

--

Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre


Re: [PATCH 0/1] Resend:[Image-Creator]Make bitbake server type configurable (xmlrpc, none)

Joshua Lock <josh@...>
 

On Fri, 2011-04-29 at 08:22 +0800, Liping Ke wrote:
From: Liping Ke <liping.ke@...>

Add -t options in bitbake for configuring server type.
Thanks Liping, this looks good to me. I've merged it into an
image-creator branch on contrib


I will be collecting image-creator related BitBake patches there for now
with the goal of porting them to upstream BitBake and submitting to the
bitbake-devel list (thought I haven't seen any traffic there for some
time)...

Cheers,
Joshua


Signed-off-by: Liping Ke <liping.ke@...>

Pull URL: git://git.pokylinux.org/poky-contrib.git
Branch: lke/server_type
Browse: http://git.pokylinux.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/log/?h=lke/server_type

Thanks,
Liping Ke <liping.ke@...>
---


Liping Ke (1):
Make bitbake server type configurable(xmlrpc,none)

bitbake/bin/bitbake | 22 +++++++++++++++++-----
1 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

_______________________________________________
yocto mailing list
yocto@...
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto

--
Joshua Lock
Yocto Build System Monkey
Intel Open Source Technology Center


Yocto Technical Team - Tuesday, 8am Pacific - Agenda

Fleischer, Julie N <julie.n.fleischer@...>
 

Yocto Technical Team,
We will be having our regular Technical Team meeting on Tuesday at 8am. If you'd like to join, dial in and agenda are below.
Thanks.
- Julie

Dial in:
Tuesday, May 03, 2011, 08:00 AM US Pacific Time
916-356-2663, 8-356-2663, Bridge: 1, Passcode: 7982611

Agenda:
1. Review 1.1 Release Criteria - https://wiki.yoctoproject.org/wiki/Yocto_Project_v1.1_Release_Criteria
2. Review 1.0.1 Release Criteria - https://wiki.yoctoproject.org/wiki/Yocto_Project_v1.1_Release_Criteria#Yocto_Project_1.0.1
3. Opens



-----------------------
Julie Fleischer
Open Source Technology Center
Intel Corporation


Re: Personal git repositories

Darren Hart <dvhart@...>
 

On 04/27/2011 03:47 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
On 04/27/2011 02:03 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:
On Wed, 2011-04-27 at 10:20 -0700, Elizabeth Flanagan wrote:
A few notes, since I talked with Darren about this earlier.

As one of the people in charge of maintaining the git repo, I would like to
avoid having, as Darren suggested, a whole bunch of -contrib repos. However,
maybe I'm missing something here, as I think basic git solves this issue:

Use Case: Tomz has a branch of meta-intel that he has pushed to
poky-contrib.git:tomz/foo. dvhart wants to look at it from his local repo:
I'm curious how many people reading this feel this is "basic git". Anyone
willing to admit this was the first time they have seen a targeted branch
fetch used to avoid a larger download? If everyone is comfortable with this,
fine. If not, we should consider the impact of this type of access on our
users.

git remote add poky-contrib ssh://git@.../poky-contrib.git
git fetch poky-contrib tomz/foo:foo
git checkout foo
My biggest complaint with this is the lack of self discovery from within git
without doing a git remote update. Unless tomz is online at the time to tell me
it's tomz/foo-bar, not tomz/foo_bar, then I have to go load the web browser and
check which branches are available, or resort to downloading all the objects.

I just realized another major issue I have with this approach. It
doesn't just mean that I _can_ use git fetch to get a specific branch to
avoid pulling in a massive pile of objects I don't need, it means I have
to stop using "git remote update" entirely for everything else I do in
that repository and I have to fetch all the other branches manually. The
recommended approach here is VIRAL.

--
Darren




I confess though, it still just feels wrong to keep unrelated source trees in
the same repository.


The fetch allows a sparse checkout of *just* tomz's branch. No need to
download all 75M of poky-contrib which is what you would do with "git remote
update". Git remote update is the wrong way to do this and I'd like to avoid
having to swap infrastructure around when it seems to me that this is just
one of those "git being a pain to learn"
Just to add to this discussion, with gitolite, it should be easy to
setup a yocto-contrib repo where each user "owns" the branches under
<keyname>/*. This means as ssh keys are added, they'd automatically get
their own "scratch" area. As Beth points out above, its perfectly
possible to checkout branches and manipulate them as long as you know
the commands.

This isn't a set of repos per user but when you think about this, how
often do we really need that? Yes, some people like Bruce have usecases
but I'm not sure they're typical and in those small number of cases I'm
sure we can come up with some generic testing/dev repos to assist too.
As soon as something grows to the point where the branch is problematic,
it deserves its own repo and it should be properly namespaced, not user
specific anyway.

I don't understand wanting to keep multiple distinct source trees in a single
git repositorie. If you have two different layers in there, each in its own
branch, then you can only work with one of them at a time. The end-user then has
to have multiple clones of the same repository in order to work with their two
layers. And they will end up naming them something like:

yocto-contrib-layer-1.git
yocto-contrib-layer-2.git

And keep them checked out to the appropriate set of branches... that seems like
a lot of pain to impose on users to avoid setting up personal git repositories.
Personally, I think I would revert to my kernel.org repositories rather than try
and make this work.

Or - is my git-fu weak? Is there a better way to handle the above?
--
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
Yocto Project - Linux Kernel


Re: [PATCH 1/1] Resend:[Image-Creator]Make bitbake server type configurable (xmlrpc, none)

Ke, Liping <liping.ke@...>
 

Hi, Josh

Thanks for your very careful review indeed! I will correct them and resend the patch!

Regards,
criping

-----Original Message-----
From: Joshua Lock [mailto:josh@...]
Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 4:32 AM
To: Ke, Liping
Cc: yocto@...
Subject: Re: [yocto] [PATCH 1/1] Resend:[Image-Creator]Make bitbake server
type configurable (xmlrpc, none)

Hi Liping,

This looks good to me. Two minor typo nits below, once they're fixed I
will create a branch on poky-contrib to collect image-creator related
patches until we're ready to switch to developing against upstream
bitbake.

Thanks,
Joshua


[PATCH 1/1] Resend:[Image-Creator]Make bitbake server type configurable(xmlrpc, none)

Liping Ke <liping.ke@...>
 

From: Liping Ke <liping.ke@...>

Add -t options in bitbake for configuring server type.

Signed-off-by: Liping Ke <liping.ke@...>
---
bitbake/bin/bitbake | 22 +++++++++++++++++-----
1 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/bitbake/bin/bitbake b/bitbake/bin/bitbake
index 6d05289..b898f63 100755
--- a/bitbake/bin/bitbake
+++ b/bitbake/bin/bitbake
@@ -39,8 +39,6 @@ import bb.msg
from bb import cooker
from bb import ui
from bb import server
-from bb.server import none
-#from bb.server import xmlrpc

__version__ = "1.11.0"
logger = logging.getLogger("BitBake")
@@ -71,7 +69,7 @@ def get_ui(config):
return getattr(module, interface).main
except AttributeError:
sys.exit("FATAL: Invalid user interface '%s' specified.\n"
- "Valid interfaces: depexp, goggle, ncurses, knotty [default]." % interface)
+ "Valid interfaces: depexp, goggle, ncurses, hob, knotty [default]." % interface)


# Display bitbake/OE warnings via the BitBake.Warnings logger, ignoring others"""
@@ -161,6 +159,9 @@ Default BBFILES are the .bb files in the current directory.""")
parser.add_option("-u", "--ui", help = "userinterface to use",
action = "store", dest = "ui")

+ parser.add_option("-t", "--servertype", help = "Choose which server to user, none or xmlrpc",
+ action = "store", dest = "servertype")
+
parser.add_option("", "--revisions-changed", help = "Set the exit code depending on whether upstream floating revisions have changed or not",
action = "store_true", dest = "revisions_changed", default = False)

@@ -175,8 +176,19 @@ Default BBFILES are the .bb files in the current directory.""")
loghandler = event.LogHandler()
logger.addHandler(loghandler)

- #server = bb.server.xmlrpc
- server = bb.server.none
+ # Server type could be xmlrpc or none currently, if nothing is specified,
+ # default server would be none
+ if configuration.servertype:
+ server_type = configuration.servertype
+ else:
+ server_type = 'none'
+
+ try:
+ module = __import__("bb.server", fromlist = [server_type])
+ server = getattr(module, server_type)
+ except AttributeError:
+ sys.exit("FATAL: Invalid server type '%s' specified.\n"
+ "Valid interfaces: none [default]." % servertype)

# Save a logfile for cooker into the current working directory. When the
# server is daemonized this logfile will be truncated.
--
1.7.0.4


[PATCH 0/1] Resend:[Image-Creator]Make bitbake server type configurable (xmlrpc, none)

Liping Ke <liping.ke@...>
 

From: Liping Ke <liping.ke@...>

Add -t options in bitbake for configuring server type.

Signed-off-by: Liping Ke <liping.ke@...>

Pull URL: git://git.pokylinux.org/poky-contrib.git
Branch: lke/server_type
Browse: http://git.pokylinux.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/log/?h=lke/server_type

Thanks,
Liping Ke <liping.ke@...>
---


Liping Ke (1):
Make bitbake server type configurable(xmlrpc,none)

bitbake/bin/bitbake | 22 +++++++++++++++++-----
1 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)


Re: [PATCH 1/1] Resend:[Image-Creator]Make bitbake server type configurable (xmlrpc, none)

Joshua Lock <josh@...>
 

Hi Liping,

This looks good to me. Two minor typo nits below, once they're fixed I
will create a branch on poky-contrib to collect image-creator related
patches until we're ready to switch to developing against upstream
bitbake.

Thanks,
Joshua


On Thu, 2011-04-28 at 13:38 +0800, Liping Ke wrote:
From: Liping Ke <liping.ke@...>

Add -t options in bitbake for configuring server type.

Signed-off-by: Liping Ke <liping.ke@...>
---
bitbake/bin/bitbake | 22 +++++++++++++++++-----
1 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/bitbake/bin/bitbake b/bitbake/bin/bitbake
index 6d05289..2c45224 100755
--- a/bitbake/bin/bitbake
+++ b/bitbake/bin/bitbake
@@ -39,8 +39,6 @@ import bb.msg
from bb import cooker
from bb import ui
from bb import server
-from bb.server import none
-#from bb.server import xmlrpc

__version__ = "1.11.0"
logger = logging.getLogger("BitBake")
@@ -71,7 +69,7 @@ def get_ui(config):
return getattr(module, interface).main
except AttributeError:
sys.exit("FATAL: Invalid user interface '%s' specified.\n"
- "Valid interfaces: depexp, goggle, ncurses, knotty [default]." % interface)
+ "Valid interfaces: depexp, goggle, ncurses, hob, knotty [default]." % interface)


# Display bitbake/OE warnings via the BitBake.Warnings logger, ignoring others"""
@@ -161,6 +159,9 @@ Default BBFILES are the .bb files in the current directory.""")
parser.add_option("-u", "--ui", help = "userinterface to use",
action = "store", dest = "ui")

+ parser.add_option("-t", "--servertype", help = "choose which server to user, none or xmlrpc",
Can you capitalise choose please?

+ action = "store", dest = "servertype")
+
parser.add_option("", "--revisions-changed", help = "Set the exit code depending on whether upstream floating revisions have changed or not",
action = "store_true", dest = "revisions_changed", default = False)

@@ -175,8 +176,19 @@ Default BBFILES are the .bb files in the current directory.""")
loghandler = event.LogHandler()
logger.addHandler(loghandler)

- #server = bb.server.xmlrpc
- server = bb.server.none
+ # Server type could be xmlrpc or none currently, if nothing is specified,
+ # default server would be none
+ if configuration.servertype:
+ server_type = configuration.servertype
+ else:
+ server_type = 'none'
+
+ try:
+ module = __import__("bb.server", fromlist = [server_type])
+ server = getattr(module, server_type)
+ except AttributeError:
+ sys.exit("FATAL: Invalid server type '%s' specified.\n"
+ "Valid interfaces: xmlrpc [default]." % servertype)
+ "Valid interfaces: xmlrpc, none [default]." %
servertype)

xmlrpc isn't the default, none is :-)


# Save a logfile for cooker into the current working directory. When the
# server is daemonized this logfile will be truncated.

--
Joshua Lock
Yocto Build System Monkey
Intel Open Source Technology Center


Re: Personal git repositories

Darren Hart <darren.hart@...>
 

On 04/28/2011 01:28 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
On Wed, 2011-04-27 at 20:59 -0400, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
On 11-04-27 6:47 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
I don't understand wanting to keep multiple distinct source trees in a single
git repositorie. If you have two different layers in there, each in its own
branch, then you can only work with one of them at a time. The end-user then has
to have multiple clones of the same repository in order to work with their two
layers. And they will end up naming them something like:

yocto-contrib-layer-1.git
yocto-contrib-layer-2.git
This is what I was wondering as well. I had my meta-kernel-dev as
a branch on poky-extras and ran into exactly this problem. Either
have two clones, or get it into master. Master was the choice, since
the other seemed clunky.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding as well, but sparse fetch or not (and
yes I've done/used it), logically I like things that are distinct
source trees to be separate repos. Maybe it's a kernel-guy thing ? :)
I think there are three elements to this:

a) People do like the logical separation that a repo gives them and
find it easiest to think in those terms.
b) Most people are used to single relatively monolithic repos such as
the kernel. People like myself who have used svn with multiple
projects contained within like matchbox or the OpenedHand "misc" svn
repo or the BSD projects approach to source control are probably in
the minority.
c) The git tooling and all the examples out there are geared up to
single repos. git is very much a tool where you need to think as its
authors do.

Agreed.


Some of this can be addressed with clear example documentation about how
to use git in this way.

Partly, these proposals are also working within the constraints of the
git server solution we have too. Are we really in such a bad position
that we need to change all the server setup over this or are there ways
we can work within the existing system (or even extend gitolite)?

I don't know what gitolite is capable of. I would really like to be able
to create and destroy my own repositories in a central location with
other Yocto developers.

However, this doesn't block me from moving forward. I can use kernel.org
or dvhart.com to do this for the time being and make requests of the
admins when I have a repository that looks to have some staying power.
I'll have to time this transition appropriately so that I don't have to
ask too many people to migrate to the new URL, but that would be true of
a personal repository to official repository move as well.

--
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
Yocto Project - Linux Kernel


Re: Personal git repositories

Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfield@...>
 

On 11-04-28 04:28 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
On Wed, 2011-04-27 at 20:59 -0400, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
On 11-04-27 6:47 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
I don't understand wanting to keep multiple distinct source trees in a single
git repositorie. If you have two different layers in there, each in its own
branch, then you can only work with one of them at a time. The end-user then has
to have multiple clones of the same repository in order to work with their two
layers. And they will end up naming them something like:

yocto-contrib-layer-1.git
yocto-contrib-layer-2.git
This is what I was wondering as well. I had my meta-kernel-dev as
a branch on poky-extras and ran into exactly this problem. Either
have two clones, or get it into master. Master was the choice, since
the other seemed clunky.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding as well, but sparse fetch or not (and
yes I've done/used it), logically I like things that are distinct
source trees to be separate repos. Maybe it's a kernel-guy thing ? :)
I think there are three elements to this:

a) People do like the logical separation that a repo gives them and
find it easiest to think in those terms.
b) Most people are used to single relatively monolithic repos such as
the kernel. People like myself who have used svn with multiple
projects contained within like matchbox or the OpenedHand "misc" svn
repo or the BSD projects approach to source control are probably in
the minority.
c) The git tooling and all the examples out there are geared up to
single repos. git is very much a tool where you need to think as its
authors do.
Agreed with the points above. git really is just wrangling a bunch
of objects into commit chains and a branch points to a starting
point. So I completely agree that all chains don't have to lead to
the same origin, like you said, it is just how people tend to think.


Some of this can be addressed with clear example documentation about how
to use git in this way.

Partly, these proposals are also working within the constraints of the
git server solution we have too. Are we really in such a bad position
that we need to change all the server setup over this or are there ways
I think we are likely ok, people have solutions that work, getting
the right contrib repos setup with appropriate permissions to setup
branches will go a long way.

As long as things stay responsive, I'd imagine that we'll find
that people will be happy with things as they are. At least we've
considered the options before it is critical.

Cheers,

Bruce

we can work within the existing system (or even extend gitolite)?

Cheers,

Richard