[OE-core] [PATCH 3/4] base.bbclass: include PV in 'incompatible license but whitelisted' debug

[Andre McCurdy]

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 11:19 PM, Richard Purdie
<richard.purdie at linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-03-31 at 11:13 -0700, Andre McCurdy wrote:
>> Referencing PN only is ambiguous if multiple versions of a recipe are
>> present.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Andre McCurdy <armccurdy at gmail.com>
>> ---
>>  meta/classes/base.bbclass | 3 ++-
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/meta/classes/base.bbclass b/meta/classes/base.bbclass
>> index 67b3370..d91e059 100644
>> --- a/meta/classes/base.bbclass
>> +++ b/meta/classes/base.bbclass
>> @@ -537,7 +537,8 @@ python () {
>>                      raise bb.parse.SkipPackage("incompatible with
>> license %s" % license)
>>              elif pn in whitelist:
>>                  if pn in incompatwl:
>> -                    bb.note("INCLUDING " + pn + " as buildable
>> despite INCOMPATIBLE_LICENSE because it has been whitelisted")
>> +                    p = d.getVar('P', True)
>> +                    bb.note("INCLUDING " + p + " as buildable
>> despite INCOMPATIBLE_LICENSE because it has been whitelisted")
>>
>>      needsrcrev = False
>>      srcuri = d.getVar('SRC_URI', True)
>
> FWIW, looking into this has been on my todo list. I've now merged a
> patch and events generated from recipes during parsing are now
> automatically prefixed with the recipe filename (we might not know
> PN/PV at that point).
>
> Hopefully that means we can simplify some of these messages rather than
> meaning we have to ensure every one contains PN/PV.

Thanks. The bitbake change seems to work fine. It creates some very
long lines though, as expected.

I'll be away next week, but I'll look into simplifying some of the
messages when I get back (if no one beats me to it).

> Cheers,
>
> Richard