[oe] OE recipe tree quality

[Frans Meulenbroeks]

2010/7/29 Philip Balister <philip at balister.org>

>
>
> On 07/29/2010 05:45 AM, Koen Kooi wrote:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 29-07-10 10:50, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>> Given the discussions on quality that sometimes pop up (and also
>>> triggered
>>> by Robert's message), I decided to kick off a bitbake -k world.
>>>
>>
>> Could you first explain to me why 'bitbake world' is a good way to
>> measure quality?
>>
>> I would think that building something like console-image and looking at
>> the following would be a much better metric:
>>
>> * does it build?
>> * are all the rootfs types working?
>> * does the image do what it is supposed to do?
>> * Are all the licenses of the output packages correct?
>> * Do the output packages have any spurious deps?
>> * Is the content of the output packages correct?
>> * Are there any known CVEs in the resulting packages?
>> * Did packaged-staging do its job?
>> * What kind of QA errors and warnings were raised?
>> * Did all recipes pass recipe_sanity?
>> * Did all recipes conform to oe-stylize.py?
>>
>> etc
>>
>> I would actually advocate removing the 'world' feature from bitbake/OE
>> to stop people from wasting time on looking at bitbake world and have
>> them fix actual problems.
>>
>
> bitbake world seems to be the source of pointless listserv discussions.
> Does it serve any purpose?
>

If you feel that in principle every recipe should be buildable, I'd say yes.
Also ideally bitbake -g world should give you a nice list of dependencies
allowing you to find out who the actual users of a recipe are.
But unfortunately last time I tried that it didn't work because of broken
dependencies or so.

Frans


>
> Philip
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel at lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
>