<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes" ?>
<!DOCTYPE bugzilla SYSTEM "https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/page.cgi?id=bugzilla.dtd">

<bugzilla version="5.0.6"
          urlbase="https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/"
          
          maintainer="it-coreprojects-helpdesk@linuxfoundation.org"
>

    <bug>
          <bug_id>2404</bug_id>
          
          <creation_ts>2012-05-03 08:18:54 +0000</creation_ts>
          <short_desc>print which pkgs would be built</short_desc>
          <delta_ts>2012-07-13 07:55:57 +0000</delta_ts>
          <reporter_accessible>1</reporter_accessible>
          <cclist_accessible>1</cclist_accessible>
          <classification_id>7</classification_id>
          <classification>Build System, Metadata &amp; Runtime</classification>
          <product>BitBake</product>
          <component>bitbake</component>
          <version>1.3</version>
          <rep_platform>x86</rep_platform>
          <op_sys>Multiple</op_sys>
          <bug_status>VERIFIED</bug_status>
          <resolution>FIXED</resolution>
          
          <see_also>https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2406</see_also>
          <bug_file_loc></bug_file_loc>
          <status_whiteboard>(P2)(QA Testing Completed)(Done)</status_whiteboard>
          <keywords></keywords>
          <priority>Low</priority>
          <bug_severity>enhancement</bug_severity>
          <target_milestone>1.3 M2</target_milestone>
          
          
          <everconfirmed>1</everconfirmed>
          <reporter name="Robert Yang">liezhi.yang</reporter>
          <assigned_to name="Robert Yang">liezhi.yang</assigned_to>
          <cc>bluelightning</cc>
    
    <cc>jason.wessel</cc>
    
    <cc>mark.hatle</cc>
    
    <cc>poky.bs.watcher</cc>
    
    <cc>poky.watcher</cc>
    
    <cc>richard.purdie</cc>
    
    <cc>sgw</cc>
    
    <cc>song.liu</cc>
    
    <cc>yi.zhao</cc>
    
    <cc>zhenfeng.zhao</cc>
          
          
          <cf_os>---</cf_os>
          <cf_regression_type>---</cf_regression_type>
          
          <cf_docchange>---</cf_docchange>

      

      

      

          <comment_sort_order>oldest_to_newest</comment_sort_order>  
          <long_desc isprivate="0" >
    <commentid>21050</commentid>
    <comment_count>0</comment_count>
    <who name="Robert Yang">liezhi.yang</who>
    <bug_when>2012-05-03 08:18:54 +0000</bug_when>
    <thetext>It would be great if bitbake can tell the user which pkgs would be built and installed to target rootfs. For example, when &quot;bitbake core-image-sato&quot;, there are many pkgs (native and target) would be built, and a part of them would be installed to the target rootfs, it would be great if we can get such a list before the build. Maybe we can add
an option to bitbake to do this, something like:

bitbake --list-pkgs core-image-sato

which would print the pkgs that would be built.</thetext>
  </long_desc><long_desc isprivate="0" >
    <commentid>21051</commentid>
    <comment_count>1</comment_count>
    <who name="Richard Purdie">richard.purdie</who>
    <bug_when>2012-05-03 08:51:38 +0000</bug_when>
    <thetext>How do you pln to predict what the package manager is going to install?

Bitbake has no knowledge to work this out from so you&apos;d have to break API separation to even try and get the information. Even if you do, the list is going to be inaccurate and I don&apos;t want to give the user inaccurate information.

I&apos;m therefore worried this task isn&apos;t realistically possible.</thetext>
  </long_desc><long_desc isprivate="0" >
    <commentid>21053</commentid>
    <comment_count>2</comment_count>
    <who name="Robert Yang">liezhi.yang</who>
    <bug_when>2012-05-03 09:11:26 +0000</bug_when>
    <thetext>(In reply to comment #1)
&gt; How do you pln to predict what the package manager is going to install?
&gt; 

Thanks, let&apos;s give up the &quot;install&quot; stage, is it possible to predict which recipe is going to build, please ?

&gt; Bitbake has no knowledge to work this out from so you&apos;d have to break API
&gt; separation to even try and get the information. Even if you do, the list is
&gt; going to be inaccurate and I don&apos;t want to give the user inaccurate
&gt; information.
&gt; 
&gt; I&apos;m therefore worried this task isn&apos;t realistically possible.</thetext>
  </long_desc><long_desc isprivate="0" >
    <commentid>21069</commentid>
    <comment_count>3</comment_count>
    <who name="Saul Wold">sgw</who>
    <bug_when>2012-05-03 19:37:11 +0000</bug_when>
    <thetext>Won&apos;t bitbake -n provide what you want for that, it provides a list of all the tasks, not just the recipes.</thetext>
  </long_desc><long_desc isprivate="0" >
    <commentid>21092</commentid>
    <comment_count>4</comment_count>
    <who name="Robert Yang">liezhi.yang</who>
    <bug_when>2012-05-04 01:53:28 +0000</bug_when>
    <thetext>(In reply to comment #3)
&gt; Won&apos;t bitbake -n provide what you want for that, it provides a list of all
&gt; the tasks, not just the recipes.
I&apos;m afraid not, what we need is to let the user see which pkg would be built clearly.</thetext>
  </long_desc><long_desc isprivate="0" >
    <commentid>21144</commentid>
    <comment_count>5</comment_count>
    <who name="Mark Hatle">mark.hatle</who>
    <bug_when>2012-05-07 15:53:05 +0000</bug_when>
    <thetext>I believe the request is that given a task, what runtime packages are going to be built.  (I realize that we can&apos;t be 100% certain due to some of the dynamic package generation capabilities in Bitbake...)

This would then give someone an idea in the end what will be built/available for install by the image system.

(I agree, we can&apos;t determine what will be installed into the image by the package manager until they are built, because we&apos;re lacking the necessary runtime information.)</thetext>
  </long_desc><long_desc isprivate="0" >
    <commentid>22040</commentid>
    <comment_count>6</comment_count>
    <who name="Robert Yang">liezhi.yang</who>
    <bug_when>2012-06-12 12:22:50 +0000</bug_when>
    <thetext>
This is for giving the user a clear list to show which pkg would be built, we have the &quot;bitbake -g&quot;, but it is not easy to read currently, it is for &quot;dot&quot;. I think that we can improve the &quot;bitbake -g&quot; to achieve this, here is the draft design document:

Modify the current &quot;bitbake -g&quot; to make it *also* print a clear pkg name list that would be built, and save it to pn-buildlist, for example:
  
 $ bitbake -g gzip

   Then the pn-buildlist would be:

   acl-native
   attr-native
   autoconf-native
   automake-native
   bash
   binutils-cross
   binutils-native
   bison-native
   bzip2-native
   curl-native
   db
   [snip]</thetext>
  </long_desc><long_desc isprivate="0" >
    <commentid>22923</commentid>
    <comment_count>7</comment_count>
    <who name="Robert Yang">liezhi.yang</who>
    <bug_when>2012-07-10 01:58:08 +0000</bug_when>
    <thetext>merged into master:

http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/poky/commit/?id=041a0e8dff1daf333613f3dd06a9bfc218213462</thetext>
  </long_desc><long_desc isprivate="0" >
    <commentid>23086</commentid>
    <comment_count>8</comment_count>
    <who name="Yi Zhao">yi.zhao</who>
    <bug_when>2012-07-13 07:55:57 +0000</bug_when>
    <thetext>Verified with 1.3 m2 rc1.
git info: eb0cb7e8234f5d2e5623406e9660be91cf52f65e

Run &quot;bitbak -g core-image-sato-sdk&quot;,
$cat pn-buildlist
busybox
shadow-native
pth
sysfsutils
qemu-helper-native
curl-native
ncurses-native
gdbm
binutils-cross
xserver-xorg
...
...


Run &quot;bitbak -g gzip&quot;,
$cat pn-buildlist
libtool-cross
zlib
m4-native
eglibc-initial
prelink-native
ncurses-native
readline-native
eglibc
apr-util-native
gnu-config-native
gettext
pseudo-native
binutils-native
gdbm
perl
attr-native
....</thetext>
  </long_desc>
      
      

    </bug>

</bugzilla>