On 06/22/2017 07:33 PM, Paul Eggleton wrote:
Hi Robert,
On Thursday, 22 June 2017 1:04:23 PM CEST Robert Yang wrote:
On 06/21/2017 10:21 PM, Paul Eggleton wrote:
On Tuesday, 13 June 2017 4:36:47 AM CEST Robert Yang wrote:
--- a/layerindex/update_layer.py
+++ b/layerindex/update_layer.py
...
+def get_layer_var(config_data, var):
+ collection = config_data.getVar('BBFILE_COLLECTIONS', True)
This makes the assumption that the layer.conf only adds one collection
to BBFILE_COLLECTIONS. Probably a valid assumption 99.9% of the time these
days, but it is worth noting.
Should we check all BBFILE_COLLECTIONS, please ?
I would say let's split the value and use the first one, but if there is more
than one then warn e.g. "Multiple collections found, handling first one (%s)
only" but otherwise continue processing. That way at least we'll know if this
situation occurs.
Thanks, good idea, I will update it in V5.
// Robert
+def explode_dep_versions2(bitbakepath, deps):
+ bblib = bitbakepath + '/lib'
+ if not bblib in sys.path:
+ sys.path.insert(0, bblib)
+ import bb.utils
+ return bb.utils.explode_dep_versions2(deps)
I'm not particularly happy with this (the wrapper nor calling bitbake code
update.py needs explode_dep_versions2 to get dependencies and then calculate
them, I had tried to move the code into update_layer.py, and let
update_layer.py print explode_dep_versions2() to update.py, but it is a
OderedDic, and not easy to process it manually, so I leave the code in
update.py.
Right, I understand the limitations and I don't really have a better
alternative unfortunately, so we'll go with your current implementation. We
may need to re-evaluate this in future at least structure-wise if we find the
need to call other bitbake code in a similar way.
Cheers,
Paul
--
_______________________________________________
yocto mailing list
yocto@yoctoproject.org
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
