<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 2:56 PM, Mark Hatle <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mark.hatle@windriver.com" target="_blank">mark.hatle@windriver.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">On 6/22/16 4:35 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:<br>
> On Wed, 2016-06-22 at 17:58 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote:<br>
>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 07:39:01AM +0000, <a href="mailto:git@git.openembedded.org">git@git.openembedded.org</a> wr<br>
>> ote:<br>
>>> rpurdie pushed a change to branch master<br>
>>> in repository bitbake.<br>
>>><br>
>>> adds 2c88afb taskdata/runqueue: Rewrite without use of ID<br>
>>> indirection<br>
>><br>
>> Is it expected that this change also changes the format of summary<br>
>> shown at the end of the build and failed tasks.<br>
>><br>
>> The commit message doesn't mention this (it even says:<br>
>> ..<br>
>> On the most part there shouldn't be user visible changes.<br>
>> ..<br>
>> There should be no functionality changes in this patch, its purely a<br>
>> data structure change and that is visible in the patch.<br>
>> ..<br>
>> )<br>
>><br>
>> So before I start fixing scripts (e.g. test-dependencies) which are<br>
>> trying to parse bitbake output to work with new format, please<br>
>> confirm that this was intentional and that it will stay this way.<br>
>><br>
>> It's also not clear why the task is mentioned twice, e.g. as:<br>
>> NOTE: Running task 512 of 548 (ID: /OE/build/oe-core/openembedded<br>
>> -core/meta/recipes-devtools/rpm/sftp.bb:do_fetch, /OE/build/oe<br>
>> -core/openembedded-core/meta/recipes-devtools/rpm/sftp.bb:do_fetch)<br>
>> ERROR: Task /OE/build/oe-core/openembedded-core/meta/recipes<br>
>> -devtools/rpm/sftp.bb:do_fetch (/OE/build/oe-core/openembedded<br>
>> -core/meta/recipes-devtools/rpm/sftp.bb:do_fetch) failed with exit<br>
>> code '1'<br>
>><br>
>> are there cases where these 2 are different? and can both messages<br>
>> use the same "format" for task description?<br>
><br>
> The taskids are no more, there is simply no notion of them inside<br>
> bitbake any longer. That means that yes, we probably do need to change<br>
> the output a bit since the number doesn't mean anything.<br>
><br>
> Equally, it shouldn't be showing the same thing twice, that is a bug.<br>
> Internally to bitbake, everthing is now in the form (or will be when<br>
> multiconfig lands) "[multiconfig:<configname>:]<recipe<br>
> filename>:<taskname>". The question is whether we expose that to the<br>
> user or massage it at all. I'm tempted just to expose that string to<br>
> the user.<br>
<br>
</div></div>I'm certainly and advocate of just exposing that string. I think in the end<br>
that is easier to explain to someone, then trying to understand a massaged output.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>I'd agree with that. Using the filenames is actually a nice convenience when you need to examine a recipe.</div></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature">Christopher Larson<br>clarson at kergoth dot com<br>Founder - BitBake, OpenEmbedded, OpenZaurus<br>Maintainer - Tslib<br>Senior Software Engineer, Mentor Graphics</div>
</div></div>