> -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Purdie [mailto:richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org] > Sent: den 13 april 2016 13:05 > To: Peter Kjellerstedt; Otavio Salvador > Cc: OE Core (openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org) > Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCHv2 1/1] Revert "useradd.bbclass: remove > user/group created by the package in clean* task" > > I am pretty frustrated with this thread. The reasons are perhaps not > immediately obvious though. > > The issue is that there are only a limited number of people who > actually dive in and try and fix some of the underlying "core > architecture" bugs. There is what I believe to be a pretty good patch > here which does fix real world issues which have been reported into the > bugzilla (its related to at least two bug reports). As such it has been > seen as a bugfix. Its now clear it does have some side effects which > weren't envisaged, some causing issues for a small number of meta-oe > recipes, the others breaking a companies internal code. > > Otavio wants it deferred to 2.2, Peter wants it abandoned entirely. > > If I revert this, Peter is then happy and has zero incentive to do > anything further. The pressure is still on the reopened bugs to try and > fix this somehow and falls back to the usual suspects. There is a real > world usability problem there.
Hold your horses. I definitely see the problem the change tried to address as one that needs to be fixed, and I am already looking at how to solve this properly (currently based on my second suggested solution). However, I do not know if I can fix it in time for Krogoth. Which is why I agree with Otavio that the change was introduced too late in the process, especially as it causes breakage for existing users. > In a single isolated case, fine, we'd figure a way through this. I > think I'm so frustrated as we see this all the time. Making a change to > the core architecture is hard and gets ever harder, then we wonder why > we don't have contributors. Part of this is having so many different > workflows and corner cases. > > I have pushed very hard to have more test cases, then its easier to > determine if a patch causes regressions. Again though, few people are > contributing to them outside the usual suspects. Here I must show my lack of knowledge. How and where should I go about adding a regression test that verifies the support for that multiple recipes can add the same user/group? Since this does not test a specific recipe, but rather a part of the build framework, I do not know if, e.g., ptest is applicable (of which I have no experience either). > I'm therefore starting to think the correct answer to this thread is > simply this: > > The patch doesn't break any of the current regression tests. If you > have use cases like this you care about, you really should make sure we > have test coverage for them, else you run the risk of exactly the > problem we have here. > > I haven't honestly decided what to do but this latter conclusion is > very tempting from where I'm sitting... > > Cheers, > > Richard //Peter -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core