Re: [Openembedded-architecture] proposal: build pipelines in bitbake-setup

On Wed, May 6, 2026 at 10:29 AM Trevor Gamblin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I do like this version of the proposal better. Having read the responses
> from the two of you, I think 'bitbake-setup run' might be a reasonable
> compromise for running steps and pipelines. What do you think?

To be honest, I think that we download bitbake to install bitbake
(using bitbake-setup) so we can use another tool (bitbake-pipeline) to
build bitbake. Although I understand why, it looks confusing.

Why not:
$ bitbake-setup --non-interactive <all your choices>
$ ./<pipeline-name> all/step1/from-step15

Can I pip install bitbake-pipeline? For example.

I understand `bitbake <pipeline-name>` is not what we want because
some of the steps will not be bitbake dependable (such as a deploy
which is only cp a image to a storage), that's why this pipeline isn't
strictly a Yocto recipe (even though a Yocto recipe is just a list of
steps). So the pipeline is a list of steps that may or may not depend
on bitbake, which is kinda bash script for example?

I like that the bitbake configuration template may provide a set of
usable steps, but I don't understand what this other tool does (other
than wrapping the build script)

Daiane
> >
> > Alex
> >
> > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> > Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
> > View/Reply Online (#2328): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-architecture/message/2328
> > Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/119158252/7611679
> > Group Owner: [email protected]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-architecture/unsub [[email protected]]
> > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> >