[OE-core] [PATCH 1/1] bitbake.conf: add tools required by testimage to HOSTTOOLS conditionally

[Andrea Galbusera]

On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 4:01 AM, Denys Dmytriyenko <denis at denix.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 10:53:03PM +0200, Andrea Galbusera wrote:
>> On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Chen Qi <Qi.Chen at windriver.com> wrote:
>> > Add tools required by testimage to HOSTTOOLS only when testimage is
>> > inherited. These tools, as described in the comment, are only required
>> > by the testimage task. So this change should not have negtive effect.
>> > This would also solve build error on hosts which miss some tool such as scp.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Chen Qi <Qi.Chen at windriver.com>
>> > ---
>> >  meta/conf/bitbake.conf | 2 +-
>> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/meta/conf/bitbake.conf b/meta/conf/bitbake.conf
>> > index f41680b..94c1f27 100644
>> > --- a/meta/conf/bitbake.conf
>> > +++ b/meta/conf/bitbake.conf
>> > @@ -484,7 +484,7 @@ HOSTTOOLS += " \
>> >  "
>> >
>> >  # Tools needed to run testimage runtime image testing
>> > -HOSTTOOLS += "ip ping ps scp ssh stty"
>> > +HOSTTOOLS += "${@['', 'ip ping ps scp ssh stty'][bb.data.inherits_class('testimage', d)]}"
>> >
>> >  # Link to these if present
>> >  HOSTTOOLS_NONFATAL += "aws ccache gcc-ar gpg ld.bfd ld.gold nc sftp socat sudo"
>> > --
>> > 1.9.1
>> >
>> > --
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Openembedded-core mailing list
>> > Openembedded-core at lists.openembedded.org
>> > http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
>>
>> This one is breaking any recipe that fetches from git repo with
>> 'protocol=ssh' in its SRC_URI... I verified that reverting this one
>> restores the usual fetcher behaviour. Should ssh be added to HOSTTOOLS
>> unconditionally or is there any other way to approach it?
>
> There's an entire thread discussing it here:
> http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/2017-October/143279.html

Thank you Denys for pointing to the full discussion: it was not
threaded together with the initial mail that submitted the patch, then
I missed it... :-/