[PATCH] Include error log of failing task in output

[PATCH] Include error log of failing task in output

[Jan Kiszka]

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"
+
 # Add event handlers for bitbake
 INHERIT += "isar-events"
 
-- 
2.13.6

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

[Alexander Smirnov]

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 
whole file contains "?=" only, for me this looks enough here too.

Alex

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

[Jan Kiszka]

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.

> whole file contains "?=" only, for me this looks enough here too.

That's likely a bug to be fixed separated.

Jan

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

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

[Alexander Smirnov]

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?

Alex

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

[Jan Kiszka]

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

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

[Alexander Smirnov]

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

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

[Jan Kiszka]

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

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

[Alexander Smirnov]

On 03/02/2018 05:42 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> 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?
> 

The first one. But user should not use "?=" for such variables like: 
BBINCLUDELOGS, BB_NUMBER_THREADS etc. If you overwrite default system 
settings, you completely understand what you are doing and hard 
assignment should be used.

> 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.

Don't really understand the usecase of cascading exactly BBINCLUDELOGS 
several times. This option doesn't affect build content, so the only one 
place to overwrite it - is your local.conf. So there are no other 
included configs for now, and I believe in future also.

Anyway, I could stay with this.

Alex

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

[Alexander Smirnov]

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.
> 

Applied, thanks.

Alex