[Buildroot] [PATCH RESEND] core: enhance printvars for variables with newlines

Carlos Santos casantos at datacom.com.br
Tue Dec 18 00:24:06 UTC 2018

> From: "Trent Piepho" <tpiepho at impinj.com>
> To: "Thomas Petazzoni" <thomas.petazzoni at bootlin.com>, chemobejk at gmail.com
> Cc: "Yann Morin" <yann.morin.1998 at free.fr>, "buildroot" <buildroot at buildroot.org>
> Sent: Segunda-feira, 17 de dezembro de 2018 18:08:58
> Subject: Re: [Buildroot] [PATCH RESEND] core: enhance printvars for variables with newlines

> On Sun, 2018-12-16 at 16:14 +0100, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
>> > Understandable from the PoV of monolithic meta build system advocates
>> > like buildroot, yocto, Android, ...
>> > 
>> > As it became clear that this patch would not be accepted any time
>> > soon, I reverted it and implemented a different approach based on
>> > quoted var printout and sed post-processing. While not 100%
>> > fool-proof, it does work for the few build variables that are required
>> > for the modular build approach.
>> You did not answer my question: why didn't you use features of
>> Buildroot such as "make <pkg>-build" or "make <pkg>-rebuild" ?
> I am also using buildroot with modern style CI.  While I find <pkg>-
> rebuild works great for manual developer workflow, there are issues
> with CI integration.
> In the CI system, we have many many git branches active at any time.
> They come and go frequently and don't start at the same branch point.
> There are also many build agents (themselves VMs) which perform the
> actual build.
> So say we have a new branch we wish to test.  The agent it is
> dispatched to happens to have the output tree from the last successful
> build on that agent (this is in itself very problematic!).  That last
> build might be from anything in the git tree.  The head of a different
> branch.  An ancestor commit but from months ago.  A commit from the
> future w.r.t. the branch we are building now.
> The chance of <pkg>-rebuild working correctly is quite small.  There
> will undoubtedly be many other packages which have changed between the
> last build on this agent and the once being attempted.
> In addition to the above, preserving the build tree between jobs on a
> agent ends up being a major obstacle in Bamboo.  Trying to archive and
> restore the multi-gigabyte output is very slow.
> And given two git hashes to a tree with a buildroot + br-extern, what
> packages exactly must be rebuilt with <pkg>-rebuild to go from one hash
> to the other?  This is also not so easy to find automatically.

You may be interested on these threads:


> So, my latest attempt to solve this problem - getting back quicker CI
> feedback - was done another way.
> What I do is build an SDK with buildroot.  This is part of a nightly
> build process that also produces a firmware image and runs system tests
> against real hardware, in addition to making an SDK.  Two SDKs in fact,
> one for the real ARM target and another for an x86_64 target.
> Each internal package has a CI job which fetches the latest SDK and
> builds the package, pointing cmake or autoconf or whatever build system
> the package uses at the SDK.  Since only the package is built, it can
> produce feedback quickly.  The toolchain and libraries and so on is
> all from the SDK and so the same as in the actual buildroot build of
> the entire firmware image.
> The x86_64 SDK has the same package versions as the ARM firmware, made
> via the same buildroot.  Because the target is x86_64, the binaries it
> produces can be run locally on the x86_64 build agents.  I do this to
> allow running the unit tests of a package quickly in CI, with needing
> to use real hardware or qemu to run an ARM unit test suite.
> I make a new package infra for our packages to try to handle them all
> in a consistent way.  A complete .mk file for one might look like this:
> TRANSPORT_PROXY_DEPENDENCIES = zeromq lttng-libust
> $(eval $(impinj-cmake-package))
> Given the SDK, there's really nothing else I need from buildroot, and
> the above .mk file, to build this package in CI.

If you need an SDK perhaps you should try Yocto, which in its turn also
has some drawbacks. We (DATACOM) attempted to use it years ago and gave
up because the development process was too complicated and slow.

The main drawback of an SDK is that as you integrate new packages and
change the base system the SDK becomes outdated. It may work for a few
packages but as we started adding modules (currently there are 295) it
became impossible to build and publish new SDK versions at the same pace
without going crazy updating our development environments every day.

Carlos Santos (Casantos) - DATACOM, P&D

More information about the buildroot mailing list