runqueue: Improve 'mulitiple .bb files are due to be built' message
PATCH 1/1 runqueue: Improve 'mulitiple .bb files are due to be built' message
When multiple recipes which both provide something are being built, bitbake informs us that most likely one of them provides something the other doesn't, which is usually correct, but unfortunately it's rather painful to figure out exactly what that is.
This patch dumps two sets of information, one is the provides information for each recipe, filtered so only common components are removed. The other is a list of dependees on the recipe, since sometimes this can easily identify why something is being built.
Its not straightforward for bitbake to obtain the information but since the warning/error code path isn't the normal one, we can afford to go through some less than optimal processing to aid debugging.
Also provide the same information even if we're showing a warning since its still useful.
[YOCTO #8032]
bitbake/lib/bb/runqueue.py +70 -2
@@ -261,6 +261,13 @@ class RunQueueData: taskname = self.runq_task[task] + task_name_suffix return "%s, %s" % (fn, taskname) + def get_short_user_idstring(self, task, task_name_suffix = ""): + fn = self.taskData.fn_index[self.runq_fnid[task]] + pn = self.dataCache.pkg_fn[fn] + taskname = self.runq_task[task] + task_name_suffix + return "%s:%s" % (pn, taskname) + + def get_task_id(self, fnid, taskname): for listid in xrange(len(self.runq_fnid)): if self.runq_fnid[listid] == fnid and self.runq_task[listid] == taskname:
@@ -753,11 +760,72 @@ class RunQueueData: seen_pn.append(pn) else: bb.fatal("Multiple versions of %s are due to be built (%s). Only one version of a given PN should be built in any given build. You likely need to set PREFERRED_VERSION_%s to select the correct version or don't depend on multiple versions." % (pn, " ".join(prov_list[prov]), pn)) - msg = "Multiple .bb files are due to be built which each provide %s (%s)." % (prov, " ".join(prov_list[prov])) + msg = "Multiple .bb files are due to be built which each provide %s:\n %s" % (prov, "\n ".join(prov_list[prov])) + # + # Construct a list of things which uniquely depend on each provider + # since this may help the user figure out which dependency is triggering this warning + # + msg += "\nA list of tasks depending on these providers is shown and may help explain where the dependency comes from." + deplist = {} + commondeps = None + for provfn in prov_list[prov]: + deps = set() + for task in xrange(len(self.runq_fnid)): + fn = taskData.fn_index[self.runq_fnid[task]] + if fn != provfn: + continue + for dep in self.runq_revdeps[task]: + fn = taskData.fn_index[self.runq_fnid[dep]] + if fn == provfn: + continue + deps.add(self.get_short_user_idstring(dep)) + if not commondeps: + commondeps = set(deps) + else: + commondeps &= deps + deplist[provfn] = deps + for provfn in deplist: + msg += "\n%s has unique dependees:\n %s" % (provfn, "\n ".join(deplist[provfn] - commondeps)) + # + # Construct a list of provides and runtime providers for each recipe + # (rprovides has to cover RPROVIDES, PACKAGES, PACKAGES_DYNAMIC) + # + msg += "\nIt could be that one recipe provides something the other doesn't and should. The following provider and runtime provider differences may be helpful." + provlist = {} + rprovlist = {} + commonprovs = None + commonrprovs = None + for provfn in prov_list[prov]: + provides = set(self.dataCache.fn_provides[provfn]) + rprovides = set() + for rprovide in self.dataCache.rproviders: + if provfn in self.dataCache.rproviders[rprovide]: + rprovides.add(rprovide) + for package in self.dataCache.packages: + if provfn in self.dataCache.packages[package]: + rprovides.add(package) + for package in self.dataCache.packages_dynamic: + if provfn in self.dataCache.packages_dynamic[package]: + rprovides.add(package) + if not commonprovs: + commonprovs = set(provides) + else: + commonprovs &= provides + provlist[provfn] = provides + if not commonrprovs: + commonrprovs = set(rprovides) + else: + commonrprovs &= rprovides + rprovlist[provfn] = rprovides + #msg += "\nCommon provides:\n %s" % ("\n ".join(commonprovs)) + #msg += "\nCommon rprovides:\n %s" % ("\n ".join(commonrprovs)) + for provfn in prov_list[prov]: + msg += "\n%s has unique provides:\n %s" % (provfn, "\n ".join(provlist[provfn] - commonprovs)) + msg += "\n%s has unique rprovides:\n %s" % (provfn, "\n ".join(rprovlist[provfn] - commonrprovs)) + if self.warn_multi_bb: logger.warn(msg) else: - msg += "\n This usually means one provides something the other doesn't and should." logger.error(msg) # Create a whitelist usable by the stamp checks
Quoted 20 lines · Richard Purdie
When multiple recipes which both provide something are being built, bitbake informs us that most likely one of them provides something the other doesn't,
which is usually correct, but unfortunately it's rather painful to figure out
exactly what that is.This patch dumps two sets of information, one is the provides information for
each recipe, filtered so only common components are removed. The other is a list
of dependees on the recipe, since sometimes this can easily identify why something
is being built.Its not straightforward for bitbake to obtain the information but since the warning/error code path isn't the normal one, we can afford to go through some
less than optimal processing to aid debugging.
Quoted 8 lines
Also provide the same information even if we're showing a warning since its still
useful.[YOCTO #8032]
Signed-off-by Richard Purdie <[email protected]>
Nice work on this, thanks much. I think this will be a big help in diagnosing issues of this sort. I have a few very minor comments below.
bitbake/lib/bb/runqueue.py +0 -0
Quoted 39 lines
index 2990de7..ac3cdae 100644
bitbake/lib/bb/runqueue.py +7
-0@@ -261,6 +261,13 @@ class RunQueueData: taskname = self.runq_task[task] + task_name_suffix return "%s, %s" % (fn, taskname) + def get_short_user_idstring(self, task, task_name_suffix = ""): + fn = self.taskData.fn_index[self.runq_fnid[task]] + pn = self.dataCache.pkg_fn[fn] + taskname = self.runq_task[task] + task_name_suffix + return "%s:%s" % (pn, taskname) + + def get_task_id(self, fnid, taskname): for listid in xrange(len(self.runq_fnid)): if self.runq_fnid[listid] == fnid and self.runq_task[listid]== taskname:
bitbake/lib/bb/runqueue.py +0
-0@@ -753,11 +760,72 @@ class RunQueueData: seen_pn.append(pn) else: bb.fatal("Multiple versions of %s are due to bebuilt (%s). Only one version of a given PN should be built in any given build. You likely need to set PREFERRED_VERSION_%s to select the correct version or don't depend on multiple versions." % (pn, " ".join(prov_list[prov]), pn))
- msg = "Multiple .bb files are due to be built which each
provide %s (%s)." % (prov, " ".join(prov_list[prov]))
+ msg = "Multiple .bb files are due to be built which each
provide %s:\n %s" % (prov, "\n ".join(prov_list[prov]))bitbake/lib/bb/runqueue.py +2
-0+ # + # Construct a list of things which uniquely depend oneach provider
+ # since this may help the user figure out which
dependency is triggering this warningbitbake/lib/bb/runqueue.py +2
-0+ # + msg += "\nA list of tasks depending on these providers isshown and may help explain where the dependency comes from."
bitbake/lib/bb/runqueue.py
Quoted 8 lines
bitbake/lib/bb/runqueue.py +8
-0+ deplist = {} + commondeps = None + for provfn in prov_list[prov]: + deps = set() + for task in xrange(len(self.runq_fnid)): + fn = taskData.fn_index[self.runq_fnid[task]] + if fn != provfn: + continue
I think this would be more pythonic:
for task, fnid in enumerate(self.runq_fnid):
fn = taskData.fn_index[fnid]
+ for dep in self.runq_revdeps[task]:
bitbake/lib/bb/runqueue.py
Quoted 5 lines
bitbake/lib/bb/runqueue.py +4
-0+ fn = taskData.fn_index[self.runq_fnid[dep]] + if fn == provfn: + continue + deps.add(self.get_short_user_idstring(dep))
Here we look up the fn of dep, but then get_short_user_idstring() does so as well, might be worth passing it in instead, unless it's used elsewhere where the fn isn't yet available.
+ if not commondeps:
Quoted 14 lines
bitbake/lib/bb/runqueue.py +6
-0+ commondeps = set(deps) + else: + commondeps &= deps + deplist[provfn] = deps + for provfn in deplist: + msg += "\n%s has unique dependees:\n %s" % (provfn,"\n ".join(deplist[provfn] - commondeps))
bitbake/lib/bb/runqueue.py +2
-0+ # + # Construct a list of provides and runtime providers foreach recipe
+ # (rprovides has to cover RPROVIDES, PACKAGES,PACKAGES_DYNAMIC)bitbake/lib/bb/runqueue.py +2
-0+ # + msg += "\nIt could be that one recipe provides something
Quoted 4 lines
the other doesn't and should. The following provider and runtime provider differences may be helpful."
+ provlist = {}
Might want to rename this variable to improve readability, just because there's also prov_list :)
+ rprovlist = {}
Quoted 13 lines
bitbake/lib/bb/runqueue.py +13
-0+ commonprovs = None + commonrprovs = None + for provfn in prov_list[prov]: + provides = set(self.dataCache.fn_provides[provfn]) + rprovides = set() + for rprovide in self.dataCache.rproviders: + if provfn in self.dataCache.rproviders[rprovide]: + rprovides.add(rprovide) + for package in self.dataCache.packages: + if provfn in self.dataCache.packages[package]: + rprovides.add(package) + for package in self.dataCache.packages_dynamic: + if provfn in
Quoted 3 lines
self.dataCache.packages_dynamic[package]:
+rprovides.add(package)
Minor and largely personal preference either way, but these loops are simple enough they could be comprehensions. Don't feel too strongly either way on that.
+ if not commonprovs:
Quoted 15 lines
bitbake/lib/bb/runqueue.py +10
-0+ commonprovs = set(provides) + else: + commonprovs &= provides + provlist[provfn] = provides + if not commonrprovs: + commonrprovs = set(rprovides) + else: + commonrprovs &= rprovides + rprovlist[provfn] = rprovides + #msg += "\nCommon provides:\n %s" % ("\n".join(commonprovs))
+ #msg += "\nCommon rprovides:\n %s" % ("\n
".join(commonrprovs))bitbake/lib/bb/runqueue.py +2
-0+ for provfn in prov_list[prov]: + msg += "\n%s has unique provides:\n %s" % (provfn,
Quoted 3 lines
"\n ".join(provlist[provfn] - commonprovs))
+ msg += "\n%s has unique rprovides:\n %s" % (provfn,
"\n ".join(rprovlist[provfn] - commonrprovs))
Might want to check to see if the list of uniques is empty before displaying its message, just to reduce possible confusion.
Thanks again,
Quoted 10 lines · Richard Purdie
When multiple recipes which both provide something are being built, bitbake informs us that most likely one of them provides something the other doesn't, which is usually correct, but unfortunately it's rather painful to figure out exactly what that is.
This patch dumps two sets of information, one is the provides information for each recipe, filtered so only common components are removed. The other is a list of dependees on the recipe, since sometimes this can easily identify why something is being built.
Quoted 8 lines
Its not straightforward for bitbake to obtain the information but since the warning/error code path isn't the normal one, we can afford to go through some less than optimal processing to aid debugging.
Also provide the same information even if we're showing a warning since its still useful.
[YOCTO #8032]
Seems to cause problems for me:
$ bitbake harfbuzz
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/home/andre/rdk/rdk-master/openembedded-core/bitbake/bin/bitbake",
line 36, in <module>
from bb.main import bitbake_main, BitBakeConfigParameters, BBMainException
File "/home/andre/rdk/rdk-master/openembedded-core/bitbake/lib/bb/main.py",
line 34, in <module>
from bb import cooker
File "/home/andre/rdk/rdk-master/openembedded-core/bitbake/lib/bb/cooker.py",
line 38, in <module>
from bb import utils, data, parse, event, cache, providers,
taskdata, runqueue, build
File "/home/andre/rdk/rdk-master/openembedded-core/bitbake/lib/bb/runqueue.py",
line 773
for task, fnid in enumerate(self.runq_fnid)
^
SyntaxError: invalid syntaxQuoted 102 lines
Signed-off-by Richard Purdie <[email protected]>bitbake/lib/bb/runqueue.py +70
-3@@ -261,6 +261,13 @@ class RunQueueData: taskname = self.runq_task[task] + task_name_suffix return "%s, %s" % (fn, taskname) + def get_short_user_idstring(self, task, task_name_suffix = ""): + fn = self.taskData.fn_index[self.runq_fnid[task]] + pn = self.dataCache.pkg_fn[fn] + taskname = self.runq_task[task] + task_name_suffix + return "%s:%s" % (pn, taskname) + + def get_task_id(self, fnid, taskname): for listid in xrange(len(self.runq_fnid)): if self.runq_fnid[listid] == fnid and self.runq_task[listid] == taskname:@@ -753,11 +760,72 @@ class RunQueueData: seen_pn.append(pn) else: bb.fatal("Multiple versions of %s are due to be built (%s). Only one version of a given PN should be built in any given build. You likely need to set PREFERRED_VERSION_%s to select the correct version or don't depend on multiple versions." % (pn, " ".join(prov_list[prov]), pn)) - msg = "Multiple .bb files are due to be built which each provide %s (%s)." % (prov, " ".join(prov_list[prov])) + msg = "Multiple .bb files are due to be built which each provide %s:\n %s" % (prov, "\n ".join(prov_list[prov])) + # + # Construct a list of things which uniquely depend on each provider + # since this may help the user figure out which dependency is triggering this warning + # + msg += "\nA list of tasks depending on these providers is shown and may help explain where the dependency comes from." + deplist = {} + commondeps = None + for provfn in prov_list[prov]: + deps = set() + for task in xrange(len(self.runq_fnid)): + fn = taskData.fn_index[self.runq_fnid[task]] + if fn != provfn: + continue + for dep in self.runq_revdeps[task]: + fn = taskData.fn_index[self.runq_fnid[dep]] + if fn == provfn: + continue + deps.add(self.get_short_user_idstring(dep)) + if not commondeps: + commondeps = set(deps) + else: + commondeps &= deps + deplist[provfn] = deps + for provfn in deplist: + msg += "\n%s has unique dependees:\n %s" % (provfn, "\n ".join(deplist[provfn] - commondeps)) + # + # Construct a list of provides and runtime providers for each recipe + # (rprovides has to cover RPROVIDES, PACKAGES, PACKAGES_DYNAMIC) + # + msg += "\nIt could be that one recipe provides something the other doesn't and should. The following provider and runtime provider differences may be helpful." + provlist = {} + rprovlist = {} + commonprovs = None + commonrprovs = None + for provfn in prov_list[prov]: + provides = set(self.dataCache.fn_provides[provfn]) + rprovides = set() + for rprovide in self.dataCache.rproviders: + if provfn in self.dataCache.rproviders[rprovide]: + rprovides.add(rprovide) + for package in self.dataCache.packages: + if provfn in self.dataCache.packages[package]: + rprovides.add(package) + for package in self.dataCache.packages_dynamic: + if provfn in self.dataCache.packages_dynamic[package]: + rprovides.add(package) + if not commonprovs: + commonprovs = set(provides) + else: + commonprovs &= provides + provlist[provfn] = provides + if not commonrprovs: + commonrprovs = set(rprovides) + else: + commonrprovs &= rprovides + rprovlist[provfn] = rprovides + #msg += "\nCommon provides:\n %s" % ("\n ".join(commonprovs)) + #msg += "\nCommon rprovides:\n %s" % ("\n ".join(commonrprovs)) + for provfn in prov_list[prov]: + msg += "\n%s has unique provides:\n %s" % (provfn, "\n ".join(provlist[provfn] - commonprovs)) + msg += "\n%s has unique rprovides:\n %s" % (provfn, "\n ".join(rprovlist[provfn] - commonrprovs)) + if self.warn_multi_bb: logger.warn(msg) else: - msg += "\n This usually means one provides something the other doesn't and should." logger.error(msg) # Create a whitelist usable by the stamp checks --_______________________________________________
bitbake-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/bitbake-devel