Message ID | 20220307194236.3837684-1-ross.burton@arm.com |
---|---|
State | Accepted, archived |
Commit | fdaf5e0027a52e44f2def0ef240134763660aa00 |
Headers | show |
Series | [1/4] pip_install_wheel: don't lazy assign PIPINSTALLARGS | expand |
On 07.03.22 20:42, Ross Burton wrote: > If we expect users to extend this we should use =, as otherwise a recipe > that does += will replace the default value. > > Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@arm.com> > --- > meta/classes/pip_install_wheel.bbclass | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/meta/classes/pip_install_wheel.bbclass b/meta/classes/pip_install_wheel.bbclass > index c1680a24ed..febcc8e445 100644 > --- a/meta/classes/pip_install_wheel.bbclass > +++ b/meta/classes/pip_install_wheel.bbclass > @@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ PIP_INSTALL_PACKAGE ?= "${@guess_pip_install_package_name(d)}" > PIP_INSTALL_DIST_PATH ?= "${@d.getVar('SETUPTOOLS_SETUP_PATH') or d.getVar('B')}/dist" > PYPA_WHEEL ??= "${PIP_INSTALL_DIST_PATH}/${PIP_INSTALL_PACKAGE}-*-*.whl" > > -PIP_INSTALL_ARGS ?= "\ > +PIP_INSTALL_ARGS = "\ > -vvvv \ > --ignore-installed \ > --no-cache \ > > Hmm all of the classes use ?= and I think for a reason - this isn't the fault of the bbclass but of the recipe in the end, as += is known to cause this depending on where the additions have been added (before the inherit or after it) - I think the better way would be to use PIP_INSTALL_ARGS:append in the actual recipe - guess the fallout would be way less than the one I expect from this change. The big question is if that should changeable by the user or not - I personally think it should be > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. > View/Reply Online (#162860): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/162860 > Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/89621292/3647476 > Group Owner: openembedded-core+owner@lists.openembedded.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [kweihmann@outlook.com] > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- >
Personally I can’t see any reason to extend the pip install arguments. What option do you think would be used by a recipe? Ross On Mon, 7 Mar 2022 at 20:06, Konrad Weihmann <kweihmann@outlook.com> wrote: > > On 07.03.22 20:42, Ross Burton wrote: > > If we expect users to extend this we should use =, as otherwise a recipe > > that does += will replace the default value. > > > > Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@arm.com> > > --- > > meta/classes/pip_install_wheel.bbclass | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/meta/classes/pip_install_wheel.bbclass > b/meta/classes/pip_install_wheel.bbclass > > index c1680a24ed..febcc8e445 100644 > > --- a/meta/classes/pip_install_wheel.bbclass > > +++ b/meta/classes/pip_install_wheel.bbclass > > @@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ PIP_INSTALL_PACKAGE ?= > "${@guess_pip_install_package_name(d)}" > > PIP_INSTALL_DIST_PATH ?= "${@d.getVar('SETUPTOOLS_SETUP_PATH') or > d.getVar('B')}/dist" > > PYPA_WHEEL ??= > "${PIP_INSTALL_DIST_PATH}/${PIP_INSTALL_PACKAGE}-*-*.whl" > > > > -PIP_INSTALL_ARGS ?= "\ > > +PIP_INSTALL_ARGS = "\ > > -vvvv \ > > --ignore-installed \ > > --no-cache \ > > > > > > Hmm all of the classes use ?= and I think for a reason - this isn't the > fault of the bbclass but of the recipe in the end, as += is known to > cause this depending on where the additions have been added (before the > inherit or after it) - I think the better way would be to use > PIP_INSTALL_ARGS:append in the actual recipe - guess the fallout would > be way less than the one I expect from this change. > > The big question is if that should changeable by the user or not - I > personally think it should be > > > > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > > Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. > > View/Reply Online (#162860): > https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/162860 > > Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/89621292/3647476 > > Group Owner: openembedded-core+owner@lists.openembedded.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [ > kweihmann@outlook.com] > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > > >
On 07.03.22 22:17, Ross Burton wrote: > Personally I can’t see any reason to extend the pip install arguments. > What option do you think would be used by a recipe? For instance the --user option is something that I used once in a setup. Plus --global-option for passing additional options into the installation scripting. I give you that, that these are used rarely - and still could be used, if the recipes would be tweaked to append after the inherit statement. And in my mind it was always like a variable with a weak assignment could be changed by the user, the ones with a hard assignment shouldn't be touched - but that could be just my mind
On Tue, 8 Mar 2022 at 07:40, Konrad Weihmann <kweihmann@outlook.com> wrote:
> For instance the --user option is something that I used once in a setup.
This is the pip_install_wheel class for installing wheels to the
system library directory, so --user wouldn't be useful surely?
Ross
diff --git a/meta/classes/pip_install_wheel.bbclass b/meta/classes/pip_install_wheel.bbclass index c1680a24ed..febcc8e445 100644 --- a/meta/classes/pip_install_wheel.bbclass +++ b/meta/classes/pip_install_wheel.bbclass @@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ PIP_INSTALL_PACKAGE ?= "${@guess_pip_install_package_name(d)}" PIP_INSTALL_DIST_PATH ?= "${@d.getVar('SETUPTOOLS_SETUP_PATH') or d.getVar('B')}/dist" PYPA_WHEEL ??= "${PIP_INSTALL_DIST_PATH}/${PIP_INSTALL_PACKAGE}-*-*.whl" -PIP_INSTALL_ARGS ?= "\ +PIP_INSTALL_ARGS = "\ -vvvv \ --ignore-installed \ --no-cache \
If we expect users to extend this we should use =, as otherwise a recipe that does += will replace the default value. Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@arm.com> --- meta/classes/pip_install_wheel.bbclass | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)