Re: [PATCH] Include error log of failing task in output

[Alexander Smirnov <asmirnov@ilbers.de>]

On 03/02/2018 04:24 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2018-03-02 14:04, Alexander Smirnov wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 03/02/2018 03:46 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> On 2018-03-02 13:43, Alexander Smirnov wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 02/26/2018 04:41 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>>> From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Particularly helpful in CI environment, but it also saves many manual
>>>>> log dumps.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>     meta/conf/isar-bitbake.conf | 2 ++
>>>>>     1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/meta/conf/isar-bitbake.conf b/meta/conf/isar-bitbake.conf
>>>>> index b49386c..8a1d86b 100644
>>>>> --- a/meta/conf/isar-bitbake.conf
>>>>> +++ b/meta/conf/isar-bitbake.conf
>>>>> @@ -42,6 +42,8 @@ BB_STAMP_POLICY ?= "full"
>>>>>       BB_NUMBER_THREADS ?= "${@bb.utils.cpu_count()}"
>>>>>     +BBINCLUDELOGS ??= "yes"
>>>>> +
>>>>
>>>> Is there any specific reason of using the weakest assignment here? The
>>>
>>> Because all tuneable confs are included after this statement.
>>
>> In my understanding, tuneable confs should not contain "?" marks in
>> assignment, because they specify concrete configuration. :-) That's what
>> I see, for example, in local.conf file.
>>
>>>
>>>> whole file contains "?=" only, for me this looks enough here too.
>>>
>>> That's likely a bug to be fixed separated.
>>
>> What is your overall policy for assignment in this case?
> 
> Upstream: Look at oe-core's bitbake.conf. It seems to do weak defaults
> pretty consistently for stuff that might be set via ?= in other confs.
> 

Yeah I saw it, but who could overwrite BBINCLUDELOGS? For me this option 
has the same level as BB_NUMBER_THREADS or PARALLEL_MAKE. So IMHO the 
only local.conf file is the place to overwrite it.

I've looked into OE/Yocto bitbake.conf, and I think there is the 
following logic that in my opinion makes sense:

  - Global build system settings are mostly defined using "?=", because 
they should be overwritten in some global file like local.conf only. 
Tuning this parameter in machine/*.conf is definitely bad idea.

  - Settings, related to produced results, like DISTRO, MACHINE, LDFLAGS 
etc. are defined using "??=", because such things could be overloaded 
from machine/distro config files, from generic recipes etc.

So I still propose to use "?=" here.

Alex