one conf, one build

[yarlB]

Hello,

May I ask if there is a reason a conf can builds multiple machines?
The problem is that you don't know if a build failed, sysbuild return 0 anyway (I am using sysbuild from a script).
I think it would be better if a conf only builds one build.

What do you think?
Thank you!

[jmmv]

The reason was simply because I often want to build the same code for the various architectures I have (had) access to at once.

The problem here is that sysbuild_build swallows the return value of do_one_build, which is very wrong. Would it be sufficient to return an error if any of the builds failed?

[yarlB]

hmm, not really.
That's your call but I think that would be better to have one revision for one particular machine to be built at once.
I'm building a script on top of sysbuild to build for many machines and many branches (using git).
It dispatches logs accross mutliple folders while reporting general information on stdout.
However, I might extend sysbuild rather that building something on top of it, if you will and if you think it is relevant, I am not sure it is.

[yarlB]

Are you still maintaining this, sysupgrade and pkg_comp? These tools are very useful but they should stay updated in my opinion and I would be happy to help (I pull-requested already..). I saw there is git support in pkg_comp afted a pull request on shtk, shouldn't we have everything in one place?
There is also an update to be done on sysupgrade about archive sets extension. May I mail you so we can discuss if you are interested?
Thank you!