Re: [PATCH 1/1] Bugfix: add a check for "None" to raise a WicError

["'MOESSBAUER, Felix' via isar-users" <isar-users@googlegroups.com>]

On Wed, 2026-07-15 at 12:55 +0300, Anton Mikanovich wrote:
> 15.07.2026 12:26, 'MOESSBAUER, Felix' via isar-users wrote:
> > On Wed, 2026-07-15 at 09:04 +0000, Ulrich Teichert wrote:
> > > Hi Felix,
> > > 
> > > > > Add a check for "None" to raise a WicError because
> > > > > get_bitbake_var may return "None" if the variable is not available, which
> > > > > would result in an exception inside os.path.isdir and not to the WicError
> > > > > exception as intended.
> > > > Hi,
> > > > 
> > > > did you also send this patch to OE? Changes in the wic plugins that are
> > > > not purely isar related have to be accepted by OE first (to avoid that
> > > > our plugins diverge up to the point of not being able to update them
> > > > anymore).
> > > No, I wasn't aware of the fact that the rootfs plugin comes from stock OE - but
> > > in that case I'll divert my patch in that direction ;-)
> > Thanks!
> > 
> > > BTW, is there a rule or a list what is from stock OE in Isar and what isn't?
> > Unfortunately not that I'm aware of.
> > Some parts like bitbake, oe-libs and the sstate.bbclass are taken as-
> > is. Other parts like the wic plugins are patched versions of upstream.
> > 
> > I hope this will get better once isar also splits the repo into
> > upstream bitbake and the isar-core layer (as Yocto already did). But
> > I'm not sure if and when that will happen.
> > 
> > Maybe the maintainers can say something about this.
> Having bitbake as (for example) submodule is a good approach, but it is not
> really possible until we have patches on top of upstream bitbake, like:
> 
> da17d920 ("bitbake: Downgrade python requirements")
> 
> Which is still needed for Debian Buster compatibility.
> We can't even update bitbake version currently because of old Python 
> version in
> Buster, which results in one more patch on top:
> 
> 34c3cda5 ("bitbake: Remove custom exception backtrace formatting")
> 
> So we can get rid of having in-tree Bitbake copy only after dropping Debian
> Buster.

IMHO we need to rework the imaging to run the bitbake parts only
outside of the chroot. But this requires some non-trivial
refactoring...

Felix

> > 
> > Best regards,
> > Felix
> > 
> > > CU,
> > > Uli

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "isar-users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to isar-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/isar-users/ea88ba5bbf907d92dcc4277950241e1c2027726f.camel%40siemens.com.