Re: [PATCH v4 - misc fixes 0/6] miscellaneous (minor) fixes

[chombourger@gmail.com]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2300 bytes --]



On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 2:46:53 PM UTC+1, Baurzhan Ismagulov wrote:
>
> Hello Cedric, 
>
> Hello!
 

> On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 11:20:15AM -0800, chomb...@gmail.com <javascript:> 
> wrote: 
> > Is this patch series ready for merge or is there anything that needs 
> fixing? 
>
> Looks good to me. I've applied it to ibr/next. I'll do some more checks 
> and let 
> you know (the commid id will change). Please check #3, it failed for some 
> reason, I had to apply it manually. 
>

Rebased locally (it did apply cleanly for me) - will anyway send v5
 

>
> Regarding #1, it's an upstream feature. Do you know how Yocto deals with 
> that? 
> E.g., does clean remove all of them? I found it useful once, when 
> something was 
> broken and I could check the previous image. Also, I usually prefer not to 
> remove intermediate files to be able to debug stuff after the build. In 
> this 
> case I agree that it's better to remove them. 
>

I can check what upstream does but to answer the other question, clean 
unfortunately leaves them behind
WICTMP is created with mktemp -d so I wonder if we would have to store it 
somewhere if we wanted to keep files in the buildchroot
but delete them when we run do_clean
 
should we introduce WIC_DEBUG?= "0" and keep them if it was set to "1"?


> Regarding #5, this is what many new users complain about: The 
> configuration is 
> scattered through many files, it's difficult even to identify which 
> variables 
> are available. MACHINE-centric tools with a single config file are much 
> easier 
> to learn in this regard. Documenting stuff would be one option. But 
> providing 
> few self-explaining locations with all variables is also important. Maybe 
> we 
> could introduce meta/conf/arch/machine hierarchy and provide variables 
> like 
> KERNEL_FILE there, at the cost of some repetition. 
>

that sounds like a good idea but do we want to expand the scope of this 
patch series?
It would be nice to fix mips builds with our current design. 

As an aside, do we have a central TODO list where we can record things we 
really want to
get done before we release something like 1.0? I recall seeing e-mails from 
different people
with own lists. Should we have it in the repo so it's easy to find?
  

> With kind regards, 
> Baurzhan. 
>

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 3439 bytes --]