Hi Richard, On Sun, Sep 19, 2021 at 07:36:56PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Sun, 2021-09-19 at 18:06 +0000, Peter Kjellerstedt wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [email protected] <openembedded- > > > [email protected]> On Behalf Of Richard Purdie > > > Sent: den 19 september 2021 13:03 > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: Re: [OE-core] [RFC PATCH] package_ipk/deb/rpm: Drop recursive > > > do_build task dependencies > > > > > > On Sun, 2021-09-19 at 11:57 +0100, Richard Purdie via > > > lists.openembedded.org > > > wrote: > > > > This is a controversial change which removes the recursive dependencies > > > > from the do_build target of packaging tasks of recipes. > > > > > > > > Currently this means when you "bitbake <image>" or "bitbake <recipe>", > > > > the packaging tasks run for all packaging backends enabled for all > > > > recipes > > > > in the dependency chain. The same therefore then applies to images. > > > > > > > > We don't actually need that, it is a convinience thing. Removing it > > > > massively simplifies the task graph and causes much fewer tasks to > > > > execute > > > > in many common scenarios. It also means less sstate is fetched for > > > > example when building an image. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <[email protected]> > > > > --- > > > > meta/classes/package_deb.bbclass | 2 -- > > > > meta/classes/package_ipk.bbclass | 2 -- > > > > meta/classes/package_rpm.bbclass | 2 -- > > > > 3 files changed, 6 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/meta/classes/package_deb.bbclass > > > > b/meta/classes/package_deb.bbclass > > > > index eca43e17876..8f0eadbcd2e 100644 > > > > --- a/meta/classes/package_deb.bbclass > > > > +++ b/meta/classes/package_deb.bbclass > > > > @@ -320,5 +320,3 @@ addtask package_write_deb after do_packagedata > > > > do_package > > > > > > > > PACKAGEINDEXDEPS += "dpkg-native:do_populate_sysroot" > > > > PACKAGEINDEXDEPS += "apt-native:do_populate_sysroot" > > > > - > > > > -do_build[recrdeptask] += "do_package_write_deb" > > > > diff --git a/meta/classes/package_ipk.bbclass > > > > b/meta/classes/package_ipk.bbclass > > > > index c3b53854e8b..756744279e1 100644 > > > > --- a/meta/classes/package_ipk.bbclass > > > > +++ b/meta/classes/package_ipk.bbclass > > > > @@ -278,5 +278,3 @@ addtask package_write_ipk after do_packagedata > > > > do_package > > > > > > > > PACKAGEINDEXDEPS += "opkg-utils-native:do_populate_sysroot" > > > > PACKAGEINDEXDEPS += "opkg-native:do_populate_sysroot" > > > > - > > > > -do_build[recrdeptask] += "do_package_write_ipk" > > > > diff --git a/meta/classes/package_rpm.bbclass > > > > b/meta/classes/package_rpm.bbclass > > > > index 88d861c0e75..9f415b234de 100644 > > > > --- a/meta/classes/package_rpm.bbclass > > > > +++ b/meta/classes/package_rpm.bbclass > > > > @@ -752,5 +752,3 @@ addtask package_write_rpm after do_packagedata > > > > do_package > > > > > > > > PACKAGEINDEXDEPS += "rpm-native:do_populate_sysroot" > > > > PACKAGEINDEXDEPS += "createrepo-c-native:do_populate_sysroot" > > > > - > > > > -do_build[recrdeptask] += "do_package_write_rpm" > > > > > > Just to add a bit more context to this, the bigger impact will be on CI > > > setups > > > including our autobuilder since "bitbake XXX" will no longer do quite what > > > it > > > did before. I'm starting to think we should move to the new behaviour and > > > apapt > > > the CI targets as/where needed. > > > > > > I have a build running on the autobuilder to see what impact this has on > > > the > > > automated tests. I'd welcome other people's thoughts on this. > > > > > > FWIW we have removed a lot of these recursive dependencies, this one is > > > one > > > of > > > the few left on do_build but it has been left as it has the biggest user > > > visible > > > impact. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > Richard > > > > You write that this is a controversial change with big user visible impact. > > At the same time you write that we do not need the removed dependencies. > > What I don't see in your commit message, nor in the follow up mail, is > > _what_ > > the impact actually is. What will I no longer get when I run `bitbake > > <image>`? > > For this change, "bitbake <image>" will no longer generate packages you're not > using. So for example if ipk is you main format but you've enabled deb and rpm > as well, only the ipk will be generated after this whilst before, the others > would too. That may be a big deal for some CI systems, hopefully less so in > real > world use. >
Does this mean that technically PACKAGE_CLASSES will basically only ever make Bitbake use the first one in the list and do nothing with the others? Cheers, Quentin
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#156166): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/156166 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/85715723/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
