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

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

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.

Jan

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