On 01/12/2015 04:53 PM, Paul Eggleton wrote:
Hi Petter,
On Saturday 10 January 2015 15:40:10 Petter Mabäcker wrote:
Currently base.bbclass is creating S if it's not created by unpacking
an archive or fetching a repository. If we avoid creating S we can detect
when S hasn't been set correctly, since it will not exist. Then we can tell
the user that they should set S to a proper value, instead of just failing
with odd errors in later tasks.
Besides removing the auto-creation of S this change will introduce a warning
if S is set incorrectly. The reason for not display an error and return is
due to all external layers that might have recipes that will fail otherwise
and that might be a bit to hard to start with. So use a warning until
people have had a chance to cleanup affected recipes.
[YOCTO #5627]
Signed-off-by: Petter Mabäcker <pet...@technux.se>
---
meta/classes/base.bbclass | 17 +++++++++++++----
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/meta/classes/base.bbclass b/meta/classes/base.bbclass
index de50be1..789af3b 100644
--- a/meta/classes/base.bbclass
+++ b/meta/classes/base.bbclass
@@ -113,7 +113,6 @@ python base_do_fetch() {
addtask unpack after do_fetch
do_unpack[dirs] = "${WORKDIR}"
-do_unpack[cleandirs] = "${S}/patches"
python base_do_unpack() {
src_uri = (d.getVar('SRC_URI', True) or "").split()
if len(src_uri) == 0:
@@ -121,11 +120,21 @@ python base_do_unpack() {
rootdir = d.getVar('WORKDIR', True)
+ # Ensure that we cleanup ${S}/patches
+ # TODO: Investigate if we can remove
+ # the entire ${S} in this case.
+ s_dir = d.getVar('S', True)
+ p_dir = os.path.join(s_dir, 'patches')
+ bb.utils.remove(p_dir, True)
+
try:
fetcher = bb.fetch2.Fetch(src_uri, d)
fetcher.unpack(rootdir)
except bb.fetch2.BBFetchException as e:
raise bb.build.FuncFailed(e)
+
+ if not os.path.exists(s_dir):
+ bb.warn("%s ('S') don't exist, you must set 'S' to a proper value"
% s_dir) }
def pkgarch_mapping(d):
@@ -220,7 +229,7 @@ CONFIGURESTAMPFILE = "${WORKDIR}/configure.sstate"
CLEANBROKEN = "0"
addtask configure after do_patch
-do_configure[dirs] = "${S} ${B}"
+do_configure[dirs] = "${B}"
do_configure[deptask] = "do_populate_sysroot"
base_do_configure() {
if [ -n "${CONFIGURESTAMPFILE}" -a -e "${CONFIGURESTAMPFILE}" ]; then
@@ -238,7 +247,7 @@ base_do_configure() {
}
addtask compile after do_configure
-do_compile[dirs] = "${S} ${B}"
+do_compile[dirs] = "${B}"
base_do_compile() {
if [ -e Makefile -o -e makefile -o -e GNUmakefile ]; then
oe_runmake || die "make failed"
@@ -248,7 +257,7 @@ base_do_compile() {
}
addtask install after do_compile
-do_install[dirs] = "${D} ${S} ${B}"
+do_install[dirs] = "${D} ${B}"
# Remove and re-create ${D} so that is it guaranteed to be empty
do_install[cleandirs] = "${D}"
This looks reasonable to me; however I'm sure I recall Chris talking about
some kind of complication with this issue a year or so ago - Chris do you
remember what that was about?
Cheers,
Paul
Ok, I will wait and see if Chris remembers anything sneaky about this. I
have run quite some tests without seeing any problems so far. Perhaps it
was about removing ${S} instead of just ${S}/patches in do_unpack ?
Because I think there have been some discussions about that in the past.
I also did some test with that in the scope of 'bug 5627', but it is far
more complex to do such a chance, a lot of recipes didn't liked that at
all =/ It seems more correct to really wipe entire ${S} in that case,
but I guess it have to wait..
BR,
Petter
--
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
