[Bitbake-dev] [RFC] [poky-sync based] Send our shell code directly to the shell process
rpurdie at rpsys.net
Thu Jan 6 15:42:36 CET 2011
On Thu, 2011-01-06 at 07:27 -0700, Chris Larson wrote:
> Agreed. Nothing new there. There are always possibilities that crop
> up and need to be added to the very long backlog of things to
I think we are making progress on some of that backlog though :)
> >> > Regarding the environment, it might be an idea to dump this to a new
> >> > separate file, env.XXX in exec_task alongside the task logfile. We could
> >> > just inject a "source env.XXX" into the run file then, making it clear
> >> > which environment was being used by the shell function. This would also
> >> > mean we can clearly see what environment python tasks are running under
> >> > too which is a question I've been asked before in reference to pseudo
> >> > usage in python functions in Poky. Previously its been impossible to
> >> > figure that out without hacking bitbake's code.
> >> This seems reasonable, particularly for the python functions, now that
> >> the exported vars go into the environment.
> > Just so I understand who is doing what, are you going to have a go at
> > these things?
> I can certainly do so, I probably have more time available than you do
> at the moment :)
I am indeed struggling for time in various ways at the moment so if you
can help I'm more than happy.
> > For the poky-sync branch, is there anything blocking merging that? I
> > think that branch and master possibly have a conflict over the python
> > function handling after the last commit to master which is why I haven't
> > pulled that change into Poky yet. How did the tests you/Tom were going
> > to run work out?
> Last I heard, there were no issues with the builds that didn't already
> exist without the bitbake changes, which is promising. I haven't yet
> verified that the removal of the env setup bits from bb.build fixes
> the rootfs construction for poky builds, however. I'd like to do that
> before merging it, and will test that today.
> > If we can get that merged, we'll be in a better position to sort out the
> > remaining bits with Poky and get us back to one codebase for bitbake.
> Assuming the rootfs issue is fixed, and assuming no other issues
> popped up in tom's builds since yesterday, I'd say we could go ahead
> and merge it tomorrow or later today after the testing.
Ok, this all sounds good to me, thanks!
More information about the bitbake-devel