[bitbake-devel] RFC: exposing information about the SRC_URI(s)/branch via buildhistory (or similar mechanism)

[chris.laplante at agilent.com]

We’re well aware of the limitations and possibility of failed builds, as I said we hardcode revisions using SRCREV overrides when necessary. It’s been working well for us so far. So, respectfully, I think that’s not relevant to the discussion.

Chris

From: Alexander Kanavin <alex.kanavin at gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2019 12:59 PM
To: LAPLANTE,CHRIS (Agilent USA) <chris.laplante at agilent.com>
Cc: Openembedded-core at lists.openembedded.org; bitbake-devel at lists.openembedded.org
Subject: Re: [bitbake-devel] RFC: exposing information about the SRC_URI(s)/branch via buildhistory (or similar mechanism)

Apologies, but I think you should drop the practice of using AUTOREV. This completely destroys reproducibility of builds, and makes them susceptible to global breakage when someone pushes a broken commit into one of the component repositories.

Yes, bumping SRCREV is annoying, but a) it can be automated; b) you can catch and reject any problems with the build at that point, so you always have a nightly that works.

AUTOREV was never meant for the project level, it is a facility strictly for local development.

Alex

On Thu, 1 Aug 2019 at 18:51, chris.laplante--- via bitbake-devel <bitbake-devel at lists.openembedded.org<mailto:bitbake-devel at lists.openembedded.org>> wrote:
Hello all,

Most of my team’s closed source recipes use something like the following:

SRC_URI = "git://git@host/path;protocol=ssh;branch=${BRANCH}"
SRCREV = “${AUTOREV}”
BRANCH ??= “master”

(BRANCH is just a convention we use to make the SRC_URI branch easy to override.)

This makes nightly builds convenient because we always build from the latest. For release versions, we can use SRCREV_pn-recipe and/or BRANCH_pn-recipe overrides in local.conf. We get the SRCREV overrides using buildhistory-collect-srcrevs. But buildhistory has no notion or tracking of SRC_URI or branches, so currently we use a script that generates the BRANCH overrides.

I’m interesting in adding SRC_URI support to buildhistory (or a similar mechanism), and would like to get some input.

Option 1) The easiest way, I think, is to just generate SRC_URI_pn- overrides with variable expansion.

Option 2) I think it could be useful to introduce BRANCH as a convention. Currently the “branch” SRC_URI parameter implicitly defaults to “master”. I could foresee it implicitly defaulting to “${BRANCH}”, with BRANCH ??= “master” to replicate existing functionality. To handle multiple source-controlled SRC_URIs, we’d have to do something similar to how SRCREV has a “name” override. With this option, I wouldn’t think it would be necessary to generate SRC_URI overrides; just BRANCH overrides.

Option 3) A combination of 1 and 2?

Looking forward to input.

Thanks,
Chris
--
_______________________________________________
bitbake-devel mailing list
bitbake-devel at lists.openembedded.org<mailto:bitbake-devel at lists.openembedded.org>
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/bitbake-devel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/bitbake-devel/attachments/20190801/e07738ca/attachment-0001.html>