[OE-core] [PATCH][V2] u-boot: state the MACHINE when skipping u-boot

[Laszlo Papp]

On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 6:17 PM, Otavio Salvador <otavio at ossystems.com.br>wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Laszlo Papp <lpapp at kde.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Paul Eggleton
> > <paul.eggleton at linux.intel.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm afraid this is not practical. The ability to specify the value for
> >> MACHINE
> >> and other variables from the external environment is not just there for
> >> folks
> >> running bitbake manually from the command line, but also external
> scripts
> >> as
> >> well, and they could quite legitimately set it to the same value that
> has
> >> been
> >> specified in the configuration file and showing a warning in that case
> >> would be
> >> undesirable.
> >
> >
> > Oh yeah, it cannot happen with compiler outputs the same way? Answer is:
> it
> > can.
> >
> > You can add another feature later though if you wish to suppress
> warnings.
> > That makes sense to me.
>
> It makes sense to not add the warning. Too many warnings just confuse
> users and does not provide anything useful as users just ignore them
> in the end.
>

"Too many warnings confuse the users" -> Despite your claim below, you have
not talked much to the gcc/clang and so forth users. You are quite off the
reality in here.

If there are users ignoring warnings for no real reasons, it is their
mistake. That does not mean careful users should be limited by those users.
Such users ignoring the warnings have no harm anyway. They will just ignore
them.

 >> I'm not sure I understand the value of showing this warning in any case.

> >> The
> >> system is not going to do anything that the user won't expect - the user
> >> specified the value of MACHINE on the command line and that's the value
> >> that is
> >> being used. The fact that it is the same as what's in the configuration
> >> file is
> >> incidental.
> >
> >
> > Have you used gcc, clang, etc? Do you have experience with warnings in
> > general? They are there in certain cases because the programmer may have
> or
> > probably made a mistake. It is a lot easier to figure out at that time
> than
> > debugging very hard later...
>
> <sarcarsm>
> I am sure we all in Yocto community NEVER used GCC/CLang...
> </sarcarsm>
>
> Did you EVER read your own messages? Please do.
>

You are quite off here, too. It was questioned about the "warning " usage
of those in this context of course. Please get back on track.

 > Actually, it is even getting more serious in your "script" case where it

> > would be totally hidden by the script if it is not logging properly, and
> you
> > would only realize an issue later.
> >
> > Surely, we all copy paste wrong on a daily basis, and we also write "foo"
> > instead "fow" and "bar" at times. So, I do not follow your comment.
> Nothing
> > to reinvent the wheel here, just follow the general practice that other
> > software developers have figured out along the decades.
>
> That's the point; we are folloing Yocto general practice and doing it
> different here won't help. Just confuse.
>

Actually, I was getting a lot more warning than I expected already, so you
are speaking against the reality. In fact, those warnings I got I could
also suppress. I do not claim they are useless though just because I do not
like them.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/attachments/20130801/7711eb33/attachment-0002.html>