| Submitter | Shane Wang |
|---|---|
| Date | Dec. 21, 2011, 4:32 a.m. |
| Message ID | <cover.1324441819.git.shane.wang@intel.com> |
| Download | mbox |
| Permalink | /patch/17343/ |
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
Pull-request
git://git.pokylinux.org/poky-contrib shane/summary-auditComments
On 12/20/2011 08:32 PM, Shane Wang wrote: > Here is the script to check which recipe provides SUMMARY and which doesnot. > For those which do not, maintainer should add or update to a meaningful summary for HOB to display in description. > Shane, I guess I am not understanding why this is needed. Why can't we use DESCRIPTION which is a required entry? Use the first X Characters of DESCRIPTION? Sau! > The following changes since commit b281fd127bac9ba77ab63a5c2b812ddd5d56df37: > > documentation/poky-ref-manual/technical-details.xml: edits per Richard Purdie (2011-12-16 16:58:41 +0000) > > are available in the git repository at: > git://git.pokylinux.org/poky-contrib shane/summary-audit > http://git.pokylinux.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/log/?h=shane/summary-audit > > Shane Wang (1): > Create a script for SUMMARY audit in recipes > > scripts/contrib/summary-audit.sh | 55 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > create mode 100755 scripts/contrib/summary-audit.sh >
Saul Wold wrote on 2011-12-21: > On 12/20/2011 08:32 PM, Shane Wang wrote: >> Here is the script to check which recipe provides SUMMARY and which >> doesnot. For those which do not, maintainer should add or update to a >> meaningful summary for HOB to display in description. >> > Shane, > > I guess I am not understanding why this is needed. Why can't we use > DESCRIPTION which is a required entry? Use the first X Characters of > DESCRIPTION? > > Sau! OK, then HOB has a bug. To use DESCRIPTION instead of SUMMARY. I am OK with that. Josh, Dongxiao, did you see any problem if I change that? -- Shane
On 20/12/11 22:10, Wang, Shane wrote: > Saul Wold wrote on 2011-12-21: > >> On 12/20/2011 08:32 PM, Shane Wang wrote: >>> Here is the script to check which recipe provides SUMMARY and which >>> doesnot. For those which do not, maintainer should add or update to a >>> meaningful summary for HOB to display in description. >>> >> Shane, >> >> I guess I am not understanding why this is needed. Why can't we use >> DESCRIPTION which is a required entry? Use the first X Characters of >> DESCRIPTION? There's a huge difference between a purposefully crafted 72 character summary and a free-for all description field that will have to be chopped to be displayed in the GUI. I originally chose summary as a succinct 72 characters would fit much better in the available UI. Aside: according to the Yocto docs the SUMMARY field should fall back to DESCRIPTION anyway. It's just that right now we do that at the package back-end level for each package back-end. > OK, then HOB has a bug. To use DESCRIPTION instead of SUMMARY. I am OK with that. > Josh, Dongxiao, did you see any problem if I change that? I think it's the wrong solution. Joshua
On 12/21/2011 10:16 AM, Joshua Lock wrote: > On 20/12/11 22:10, Wang, Shane wrote: >> Saul Wold wrote on 2011-12-21: >> >>> On 12/20/2011 08:32 PM, Shane Wang wrote: >>>> Here is the script to check which recipe provides SUMMARY and which >>>> doesnot. For those which do not, maintainer should add or update to a >>>> meaningful summary for HOB to display in description. >>>> >>> Shane, >>> >>> I guess I am not understanding why this is needed. Why can't we use >>> DESCRIPTION which is a required entry? Use the first X Characters of >>> DESCRIPTION? > > There's a huge difference between a purposefully crafted 72 character > summary and a free-for all description field that will have to be > chopped to be displayed in the GUI. I originally chose summary as a > succinct 72 characters would fit much better in the available UI. > > Aside: according to the Yocto docs the SUMMARY field should fall back to > DESCRIPTION anyway. It's just that right now we do that at the package > back-end level for each package back-end. > Seems that's the other way around as coded, DESCRIPTION falls back to SUMMARY meta/conf/bitbake.conf:DESCRIPTION ?= "${SUMMARY}" Which is why I think this issue is cropping up. So, then the proposal should really be to add SUMMARY to all recipes and initially make it a warning for now if non-existent SUMMARY as with DESCRIPTION and then remove the existing SUMMARY = ${PN}-${PV} ...?? The audit would then be the list of warnings which later becomes error Sau! > >> OK, then HOB has a bug. To use DESCRIPTION instead of SUMMARY. I am OK with that. >> Josh, Dongxiao, did you see any problem if I change that? > > I think it's the wrong solution. > > Joshua
On 12/21/11 12:43 PM, Saul Wold wrote: > On 12/21/2011 10:16 AM, Joshua Lock wrote: >> On 20/12/11 22:10, Wang, Shane wrote: >>> Saul Wold wrote on 2011-12-21: >>> >>>> On 12/20/2011 08:32 PM, Shane Wang wrote: >>>>> Here is the script to check which recipe provides SUMMARY and which >>>>> doesnot. For those which do not, maintainer should add or update to a >>>>> meaningful summary for HOB to display in description. >>>>> >>>> Shane, >>>> >>>> I guess I am not understanding why this is needed. Why can't we use >>>> DESCRIPTION which is a required entry? Use the first X Characters of >>>> DESCRIPTION? >> >> There's a huge difference between a purposefully crafted 72 character >> summary and a free-for all description field that will have to be >> chopped to be displayed in the GUI. I originally chose summary as a >> succinct 72 characters would fit much better in the available UI. >> >> Aside: according to the Yocto docs the SUMMARY field should fall back to >> DESCRIPTION anyway. It's just that right now we do that at the package >> back-end level for each package back-end. >> > Seems that's the other way around as coded, DESCRIPTION falls back to > SUMMARY > > meta/conf/bitbake.conf:DESCRIPTION ?= "${SUMMARY}" Ya, I believe the original work was the reverse.. SUMMARY was the first X number of characters from the DESCRIPTION, but that soon changed.. Then the next iteration, all of the descriptions become summary fields and DESCRIPTION inherited SUMMARY. And then a default SUMMARY was added to maintain compatibility with older OE recipes. > Which is why I think this issue is cropping up. So, then the proposal > should really be to add SUMMARY to all recipes and initially make it a > warning for now if non-existent SUMMARY as with DESCRIPTION and then > remove the existing SUMMARY = ${PN}-${PV} ...?? > > The audit would then be the list of warnings which later becomes error I agree, this should become some kind of an audit warning, so we can improve the quality of the recipe information. I'm not sure I want it to be an error though as it may impact folks with existing OE recipes... --Mark > Sau! > >> >>> OK, then HOB has a bug. To use DESCRIPTION instead of SUMMARY. I am OK with that. >>> Josh, Dongxiao, did you see any problem if I change that? >> >> I think it's the wrong solution. >> >> Joshua > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-core mailing list > Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
On Wednesday 21 December 2011 12:59:05 Mark Hatle wrote: > On 12/21/11 12:43 PM, Saul Wold wrote: > > Which is why I think this issue is cropping up. So, then the proposal > > should really be to add SUMMARY to all recipes and initially make it a > > warning for now if non-existent SUMMARY as with DESCRIPTION and then > > remove the existing SUMMARY = ${PN}-${PV} ...?? > > > > The audit would then be the list of warnings which later becomes error > > I agree, this should become some kind of an audit warning, so we can improve > the quality of the recipe information. I'm not sure I want it to be an > error though as it may impact folks with existing OE recipes... Do we want to be showing this warning to everyone or should it just be part of a class you can enable (e.g. oelint.bbclass - which needs some work by the looks of it)? Cheers, Paul