On Thursday 13 August 2015 12:45:08 Leonardo Sandoval wrote: > On 08/13/2015 05:06 AM, Paul Eggleton wrote: > > On Tuesday 11 August 2015 14:04:14 > > leonardo.sandoval.gonza...@linux.intel.com> > > wrote: > >> This is a new devtool's feature, which upgrades a recipe to a > >> particular version number. Code was taken from [1] where some > >> modifications > >> were done (remove all email, buildhistory and statistics features, > >> use devtool logger instead of AUH logger) to adapt the devtool framework. > >> Once the upgrade is over, the new recipe will be located under the > >> devtool's workspace. This is a first approach to this feature; pending > >> tasks include: > >> > >> 1. The AUH [1] is used to rename and update the recipe. AUH is not > >> using the lib/oe/recipeutils library to do this work. AUH ported code > >> should use this library which is the one being used by the rest of the > >> devtool features. > >> > >> 2. Currently, when 'update-recipe' is executed, the recipe under > >> workspace > >> is updated with latest commits. The only task missing is to replace the > >> new > >> recipe with the old one, commonly located under the meta layer. > >> > >> 3. When patches fail to apply, follow the PATCHRESOLVE behavior instead > >> of > >> just failing. > >> > >> 4. Patches most of the time do not apply correctly on the new recipe > >> version, so include a command line option to indicate the system not to > >> apply these, so it can be applied manually later on. > > > > So, this is a good first implementation and gives an idea of how the > > command will work - and I'm quite keen for us to have this, I've had > > several people asking me recently about when we'll be adding it, so it's > > definitely something we want. > > > > However, I'm concerned about the volume of code we're adding here, some of > > which duplicates what we already have in devtool or elsewhere in lib/oe. I > > know this is the easiest approach and you've noted it's todo item #1 above > > to work on - I'll be a lot happier if you can improve that before the > > final version. > > > > In particular, I see the upgrade() function is duplicating a bunch of code > > from modify() - we should split the common parts out to separate > > function(s) that can be called from both places instead. > > As you noticed, there is code duplication specially on the standard.py. > Code on this file needs to be refactor somehow so the function upgrade > can call these new functions. > > > Some other comments: > > > > * I can see it's actually making changes to the original recipe - I found > > this because I'd run a devtool upgrade on dropbear and specified the > > wrong version to --version Ctrl+C'd out during the fetch part, and the > > original dropbear.inc was modified instead of the one in the workspace. > > We don't want to touch the original recipe, not until you run > > update-recipe at least. > > Ok. This is definitely a bug. All work must be done in the workspace. > This is contrary to the AUH code, which works on poky default layers, so > this bug may be something I did not change on the ported code.
That's what I'd assume as well yes. > > * As far as the source tree is concerned I think that this is doing things > > slightly backwards - it's using the AUH code to do the upgrade, and then > > it's extracting the code. What I'd like to see happen is it extract the > > code for the old version (including applying patches), use the AUH code > > to figure out how to fetch the new version, fetch it into a different > > branch (assuming it's not already there since it was fetched from git), > > then rebase the patches onto the new version - the user can then use git > > to fix things up if patches don't apply. > > got it. Looks good to me. I also though using the recipetool script > (instead of AUH), but this one creates a recipe from scratch so it is > not really useful at this moment. For pointers, look at how "devtool extract" and "devtool modify" work (for the extraction part, they use the same _extract_source() function). > > * I'm not sure if using an existing source tree is a reasonable default > > for this command - I'm not even sure it's something people will want to do > > at all in the context of an upgrade. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise > > though - any opinions (from anyone)? > > > > * We need oe-selftest tests for this that test as much of the > > functionality as possible. This may require adding some simple > > "synthetic" recipes to meta- selftest so that we have something that's > > always there to upgrade. Based upon my recent experience in devtool (with > > my own code), the sooner we add these the better. > > good point. I will add these on v2. > > > * I'd like to see the implementation for this in its own file rather than > > in standard.py. > > Good. What about the other features (add, update-recipe, modify, etc.)? > will these remain in the same place? At some point we might refactor these out, but I don't know if I'd make it a priority at the moment. > > * Probably just a result of this being WIP, but I found that if I don't > > specify a version with --version then it says "NOTE: Upgrading to None" > > and > > then fails with "ERROR: cannot concatenate 'str' and 'NoneType' objects". > > Bug. I will also add it on V2. Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core