[oe] [PATCH] bitbake.conf: don't append MACHINE_OVERRIDES to OVERRIDES when it's empty

[Denys Dmytriyenko]

On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 03:24:58PM -0400, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 02:18:25PM -0500, Maupin, Chase wrote:
> > > > I saw this issue in my overlay of having a "::" in my OVERRIDES which
> > > > caused my parsing to fail in angstrom.inc.  Applying this fix from
> > > Martin
> > > > resolves the parsing issue.  My OVERRIDES appear to be in the correct
> > > order
> > > > with this change:
> > > 
> > > Can you explain this?  "caused my parsing to fail" is not very useful
> > > information.  What exactly failed?
> > 
> > Chris,
> > 
> > Sorry, I thought this was an understood issue.  I have put the error output 
> > I got below.  Basically, when I got to line 509 of data.py the variables had 
> > the following values:
> > 
> > vars = set(['__functions_', '_', '__functions__'])
> > 
> > var = '__functions__'
> > 
> > overrides = ['pn-angstrom', 'fail-fast', 'build-linux', 'arm', 'INVALID', 'angstrom-2008.1', '', 'am37x-evm', 'local']
> >  
> > o = ''
> > 
> > OVERRIDES = 'pn-angstrom:fail-fast:build-linux:arm:INVALID:angstrom-2008.1::am37x-evm:local'
> > 
> > The current override being evaluated was the '' one.
> > 
> > The line being evaluated in my overlay was USERDISTRO := "${DISTRO}" in my 
> > copy of angstrom.inc
> 
> Chris,
> 
> FYI, the below "RuntimeError: Set changed size during iteration" exception 
> happens in bitbake 1.8.18 but not the 1.10/mainline.

Chris, Martin,

After more debugging, it seems the problem is caused by using bitbake 1.8.18 
and conf/collections.inc at the same time, as that version of bitbake chokes 
on empty override "::", when it gets re-spawned from collections.inc. If I 
replace the use of COLLECTIONS with direct BBFILES/BBFILE_* assignments, bitbake 
parses everything just fine. It is reproducible right now on the latest OE 
mainline with bitbake 1.8.18 by just adding "require conf/collections.inc" in 
local.conf or bitbake.conf.

I see that Martin's patch was marked as "Superseded" and archived - is there a 
new patch coming? Or are there any side-effects of this patch? I would 
definitely like to push this patch ASAP to address our immediate problem. 
Thanks.

-- 
Denys