On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 3:02 PM Richard Purdie
<richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2020-05-19 at 20:36 +0200, Konrad Weihmann wrote:
> > in case the opkg command fails in before no output of the tool
> > itself was printed to assist the user with debugging the issue.
> > Print all output of the tool by using CalledProcessError wrapper around
> > the call
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Konrad Weihmann <kweihm...@outlook.com>
> > ---
> > meta/classes/package_ipk.bbclass | 11 +++++++----
> > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/meta/classes/package_ipk.bbclass
> > b/meta/classes/package_ipk.bbclass
> > index c008559e4a..5e7d552cc5 100644
> > --- a/meta/classes/package_ipk.bbclass
> > +++ b/meta/classes/package_ipk.bbclass
> > @@ -223,10 +223,13 @@ def ipk_write_pkg(pkg, d):
> > conffiles.close()
> >
> > os.chdir(basedir)
> > - subprocess.check_output("PATH=\"%s\" %s %s %s" %
> > (localdata.getVar("PATH"),
> > -
> > d.getVar("OPKGBUILDCMD"), pkg, pkgoutdir),
> > - stderr=subprocess.STDOUT,
> > - shell=True)
> > + try:
> > + subprocess.check_output("PATH=\"%s\" %s %s %s" %
> > (localdata.getVar("PATH"),
> > +
> > d.getVar("OPKGBUILDCMD"), pkg, pkgoutdir),
> > + stderr=subprocess.STDOUT,
> > + shell=True)
> > + except subprocess.CalledProcessError as exp:
> > + bb.fatal("{} failed with {}: {}".format(exp.cmd,
> > exp.returncode, exp.output.decode("utf-8")))
> >
> > if d.getVar('IPK_SIGN_PACKAGES') == '1':
> > ipkver = "%s-%s" % (d.getVar('PKGV'), d.getVar('PKGR'))
>
> I get the feeling we have a problem with our subprocess calls and
> debugging but its hard to know what to do about it. We can patch each
> call site like this but it starts to make we wonder whether we need a
> general wrapper, or we're missing something in bitbake or elsewhere to
> help with things.
>
> There is this code:
>
> http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky/tree/bitbake/lib/bb/utils.py#n378
>
> which is meant to help but it clearly isn't helping/catching all cases.
>
> I think we are going to need to look at a wider/more general solution
> or at least have a plan for one.
>
are you think of wrapping subprocess.check_output calls with some post
processing ?
> Cheers,
>
> Richard
>
>
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#138494):
https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/138494
Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/74331803/21656
Group Owner: openembedded-core+ow...@lists.openembedded.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
