On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 05:25:58PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Wed, 2011-06-01 at 16:06 +0100, Phil Blundell wrote: > > On Tue, 2011-05-31 at 15:26 -0700, Scott Garman wrote: > > > I'd like to collect some feedback on error messages while building that > > > you find confusing/annoying/unhelpful. I'm going to be working on trying > > > to improve the situation and would like to hear from you about what > > > could be more helpful. > > > > Funnily enough we were just having a discussion about this on irc. My > > personal top two least favourite diagnostics are: > > > > a) "bitbake -b nonexistent-file" gives ten lines of so of python > > exception traceback and then prints "MultipleMatches". > > > > b) "bitbake -b recipe.bb", with a recipe that skips (due to an > > inCOMPATIBLE_MACHINE or whatever) gives the traditional ten lines of > > traceback spew and then prints "TypeError: 'NoneType' object is not > > iterable". > > > > This is with bitbake 1.13.0. > > Agreed, these are issues. > > I'd like to highlight that there is an underlying design issue in > bitbake which make these hard issues to fix. Its very hard for bitbake > to work out when it needs to show the traceback and when it doesn't. > > If the user has been given an explanation of the problem we shouldn't > show the traceback but its hard to know that is the case. > > Somehow we therefore need to improve the error infrastructure in bitbake > to be able to tell the difference between an unexpected error where a > traceback is useful and a known error which has been explained to the > user and no traceback is required.
Well perhaps it would be easier to build a list of packages that have been skipped? I think the cache knows about them. Perhaps they could be reported to a "skipped" file or something similar? --mark _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
