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

[Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>]

On 2018-03-02 14:57, Alexander Smirnov wrote:
> 
> 
> 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.


Is there a well defined ordering when multiple ?= follow each other?
Which one wins, the first or the last?

Often you have the desire to provide a default in some included config
in case some other include does not define a final value. We are at the
top level here, so we should step back from such things and use a weak
default.

Jan

-- 
Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RDA IOT SES-DE
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux