[Openembedded-architecture] Heterogeneous System Proposal

Paul Eggleton paul.eggleton at linux.intel.com
Tue Dec 3 04:04:36 UTC 2019


Taking just this part of the discussion for now (since it is a small familiar aspect to me)

On Tuesday, 3 December 2019 1:08:54 PM NZDT Mark Hatle wrote:
> > You may want to consider this now. Adding system with the "nomachine"
> > mode you mention is a nightmare scenario for parsing. Bitbake has a
> > problem with knowing when to parse or not to parse since to 'skip'
> > parsing a recipe, it needs to parse enough to know it should skip it.
> > COMPATIBLE_MACHINE is implemented with the skip mechanism for example.
> > If parsing is a concern (and I agree it is), you could probably get
> > much further with a BBMASK approach to just the system-images recipe as
> > then bitbake would know what it needs to parse without needing to read
> > the recipes.
> 
> The problem I have with BBMASK is that when a user tries to do something with
> it, they don't get a reasonable error message.
>
> For instance if I BBMASK out bash, and the user does bitbake bash they get an
> error.  Instead of a 'bash is unavailable because ...'.

The only practical way for that to work is the existing skip mechanism, since PN isn't always completely defined by the .bb filename, we need to actually parse to determine its value. gcc-cross and other parts of the toolchain are examples. 

BBMASK is such a usability pain - both in your scenario but also in the reverse where you have to hack it until it only masks exactly what you do want masked - that I think we would be best advised not to make any more use of it than we currently do, especially if it's only to save a bit of time parsing.

Cheers
Paul

-- 

Paul Eggleton
Intel System Software Products




More information about the Openembedded-architecture mailing list