On Wed, 2017-03-01 at 16:51 +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote: > On Wed, 2017-03-01 at 15:12 +0000, Richard Purdie wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2017-03-01 at 08:10 +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote: > > > > > > Is the "build single distro for different machines" scenario that > > > I > > > described part of the Yocto Compliance 2.0? Should there be tests > > > for > > > it? > > Right now its not > Okay, so the goal is a bit less ambitious than I had thought. I > wonder > whether that's useful, because at least the problems Ostro and AGL > (at > least as far as I understood it from lurking on their mailing list) > had > only happened when trying to combine multiple BSP layers *and* > actually > using the different machines in the same distro. > > > > > but I'd consider it. > At least I'd find that useful - not sure about others ;-}
I do like the idea, I'm also mindful of walking before running... > > > > The question is can we write an > > easy generic test for it, > It's a bit more complicated than the existing tests, but I think it > is > doable. > > > > > and also clearly phrase the criteria in the > > list of compliance questions with a binary yes/no answer? > Does the BSP layer only modify machine-specific packages and only > when > the MACHINE(s) defined by the BSP layer are selected? [yes/no] > > The "only when" part is covered by the existing tests (because they > keep > MACHINE constant). The missing part is comparing different MACHINE > sstamps. That seems reasonable, unless the layer in question applying for compatibility is not a BSP layer but thats a minor detail. I'm open to more details on what the test would look like. Cheers, Richard -- _______________________________________________ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
