[OE-core] [OE-Core][PATCH] kernel-fitimage: uboot-sign: Check UBOOT_DTB_BINARY before adding deps

[richard.purdie at linuxfoundation.org]

On Wed, 2019-06-12 at 19:02 +0100, Alex Kiernan wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2019 at 10:59 AM Richard Purdie
> <richard.purdie at linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2019-06-12 at 09:15 +0100, Alex Kiernan wrote:
> > > Since UBOOT_DTB_BINARY empty means we don't need to inject
> > > signatures
> > > into the U-Boot DTB, we can remove the dependencies between
> > > consumers
> > > of
> > > these two classes and resolve a circular dependency between u-
> > > boot
> > > and
> > > kernel.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Alex Kiernan <alex.kiernan at gmail.com>
> > > ---
> > > 
> > >  meta/classes/kernel-fitimage.bbclass | 2 +-
> > >  meta/classes/uboot-sign.bbclass      | 2 +-
> > >  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > Really wish we had tests and documentation for these classes...
> > 
> 
> I know... I have a dread anytime anyone touches it, me included... I
> sat on this change for a couple of weeks too.

I also have little idea what to do with the patches, I just don't have
enough information to make any informed decision here :/.

> The truth is the pair of them are fragile and hopelessly intertwined,
> but without tests they're never going to get rewritten, so I might
> try and take some of that on (or get someone here to do it) as I
> still have multiple issues with them - signing doesn't really work
> the way I want, I still have a circular dependency I've not tracked
> down, doubtless other things I can't immediately bring to mind.
> 
> If we were to add some tests around it, what would you pull out as
> the simplest thing that it could do which would be valuable?

I don't know enough about what its doing or how people are using it to
make a useful comment on that.

I'd suggest whoever writes the tests gets to document and test the way
they use it. They can then modify and improve the code such that the
tests keep working. If other untested usecases break, that would be
unfortunate and we'd want to add testcases if they got fixed.

I'd be quite happy to work to such a policy (within reason).

Cheers,

Richard