On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 4:46 PM Richard Purdie <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, 2021-07-22 at 09:16 -0400, Bruce Ashfield wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 8:47 AM Nicolas Dechesne > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > In order to be compliant with the YP compatible status, a layer also > > > needs to ensure that all its dependencies are compatible > > > too. Currently yocto-check-layer only checks the requested layer, > > > without testing any dependencies. > > > > > > > > > Is that actually written into our compliance statements ? (that dependency > > layers must also be compliant) > > > > I had never heard that before, and in my opinion, that will actively > > encourage > > people to copy recipes if they want to be compliant but a dependent layer is > > problematic. > > It has been the case as it logically doesn't make sense otherwise but the > YP Compat pieces need better documentation. The TSC did work on fixing this > up but we're blocked on a lack of advocacy people to help with the other > side of the programme. > > Thinking the above though, the reasoning is that if we don't require that, > it lets anyone just push their non-compliant bits into meta-non-compatible > and then have meta-compatible depend on meta-non-compatible. It also meant > nobody had much interest in having meta-oe or meta-virt being YP Compat.
Indeed. I can see that happening as well. I'll cross the bridge if meta-virt goes incompatible due to a dependency when it happens! > > The hope is that it causes "bad" layers to get fixed. We've put pieces in > place > to try and at least ensure the core layers pass and stay passing. > > > With this change, all dependencies are also checked by default, so the > > > summary printed at the end will give a clear picture whether all > > > dependencies pass the script or not. > > > > > > Using --no-auto-dependency can be used to skip that. > > > > > > > > > I'd actually prefer the opposite, to make the compliance runs faster by > > default, versus someone having to find out about this option later. We > > already get complaints about check layer speed, and doing more by default > > won't help on that front. > > I can see the arguments both ways on this. "The script says it is compatible > so I can use the badge" :/ Agreed. It is obviously up to you on this. I just wanted to make sure. Bruce > > Cheers, > > Richard > > > -- - Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await thee at its end - "Use the force Harry" - Gandalf, Star Trek II
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#154104): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/154104 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/84377969/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
