*Very* helpful stuff. I have re-created the tree you described, and everything seems to work. In particular, bitbake-layers seems happy. I tried executing it against BitBake 1.12.0 and it succeeded. FYI, it failed against the current BitBake master, which is 1.16.0.
I have some additional questions below. You've already been so helpful that I'm reluctant to impose … but I'm going to try anyway :) On Oct 4, 2012, at 1:58 PM, Rudolf Streif <rudolf.str...@linux.com<mailto:rudolf.str...@linux.com>> wrote: My Bitbake "Hello World" is a little more than a basic "Hello World". Indeed it is. One of my first tasks will be to *remove* as much as possible from this until the only thing it does is print out "Hello, World!" I'll be happy to share my results if anyone is interested. Bitbake will require a base.bbclass file somewhere in a classes subdirectory of BBPATH. I used the base.bbclass file from the Bitbake download. As a minimum it should contain a do_build task. That's the target that Bitbake invokes by default if you do not use the -c option explicitly. … addtask build do_build[dirs] = "${TOPDIR}" do_build[nostamp] = "1" python base_do_build () { bb.note("The included, default BB base.bbclass does not define a useful default task.") bb.note("Try running the 'listtasks' task against a .bb to see what tasks are defined.") } If I understand correctly, the name of the task is "build", and the name of the Python function that implements it is "do_build()". So, it appears BitBake prefixes all task names with "do_" to derive the name of the function that implements the task. Have I got that right? The "build" task is *required*, and it's the *only* one that's required? I've been looking around in the BitBake source code a lot, so I'm *somewhat* familiar with it. I tried to find the "hard" reference to "do_build" you described, but I couldn't. Can you give me a hint? Finally a recipe to build the Nano editor: DESCRIPTION = "Recipe to build the 'nano' editor" PN = "nano" PV = "2.2.6" SRC_URI = "http://www.nano-editor.org/dist/v2.2/nano-2.2.6.tar.gz"; python do_fetch() { bb.note("Downloading source tarball from ${SRC_URI} ...") src_uri = (bb.data.getVar('SRC_URI', d, True) or "").split() if len(src_uri) == 0: bb.fatal("Empty URI") try: bb.fetch.init(src_uri, d) bb.fetch.go(d) except FetchError: bb.fatal("Could not fetch source tarball.") bb.note("Download successful.") } addtask fetch before do_build I see here that you're creating the recipe-specific "do_fetch()" function, which seems intended to "override" the default "do_fetch()" provided by the base class. This prompts some questions: 1) Must a "task function" be a Python function? Or will a bash function do? 2) Is it absolutely necessary to follow a recipe-specific task function with an "addtask"? Based on experience from "real" object-oriented languages, a naive observer (like me) would guess the simple presence of "do_fetch()" in the recipe is all that's necessary. Or is it the "addtask" that actually "slots" the new function in?
_______________________________________________ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
