Patchwork [0/1,RESEND] Create a script for SUMMARY audit in recipes

login
register
mail settings
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-audit

Comments

Shane Wang - Dec. 21, 2011, 4:32 a.m.
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.

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 - Dec. 21, 2011, 5:45 a.m.
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
>
Shane Wang - Dec. 21, 2011, 6:10 a.m.
Saul Wold wrote onĀ 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
Joshua Lock - Dec. 21, 2011, 6:16 p.m.
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
Saul Wold - Dec. 21, 2011, 6:43 p.m.
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
Mark Hatle - Dec. 21, 2011, 6:59 p.m.
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
Paul Eggleton - Dec. 22, 2011, 10:17 a.m.
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