Hi Heinrich, On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 at 04:20, Heinrich Schuchardt <heinrich.schucha...@canonical.com> wrote: > > On 4/18/25 13:39, Simon Glass wrote: > > Hi Quentin, > > > > On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 at 05:27, Quentin Schulz <quentin.sch...@cherry.de> > > wrote: > >> > >> Hi Heinrich, > >> > >> On 4/17/25 12:40 AM, Heinrich Schuchardt wrote: > >>> Currently we are no able to build with configuration fragments in our CI. > >>> With this patch buildman gets a new argument --fragments for passing a > >>> comma separated list of configuration fragments to add to the board > >>> defconfigs, e.g. > >>> > >>> tools/buildman/buildman \ > >>> -o build \ > >>> -k qemu-riscv64_smode \ > >>> --fragments acpi.config > >>> > >> > >> What about using: > >> > >> --fragment acpi.config --fragment fragment2.config > >> > >> ? > > > > Yes that could be useful. It would also allow wildcards, although the > > code would need to drop the config/ directory prefix. Also, I see that > > -z is available so perhaps that could be a (bad) short option? > > Hello Simon, > > What do you mean by useful? > > --fragments a,b conveys the same information as --fragment a --fragment b. > > We are not passing any config/ directory with the fragment names. > > Using wildcards in does not depend on how fragment names are passed. > > As maintainer of buildman, please, clearly express how you want the > fragment names to be passed. "Could be useful" does not indicate any > decision but let's me hang in limbo.
NAK We need a file which lists the valid boards for each config fragment. Buildman should parse that and it should be possible (with an argument like --build-all-fragments) to build all fragments for a board (or all boards), to make sure that things actually build. See [1] So until that is done I'm going to NAK the whole concept[2]. Regards, Simon [1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/patch/20241108152350.3686274-9-...@chromium.org/ [2] https://lore.kernel.org/u-boot/20250329002537.GN93000@bill-the-cat/
