Re: [bitbake-devel] [PATCH] bitbake-setup: preserve build config when init script is missing

Hi Alex,

Thanks for questioning this. This came from auditing the failure paths
in `bitbake-setup`, rather than from a reported OE-Core incident.

I went back and checked whether the scenario used by the test is
actually permitted by the setup/update model.

`checkout_layers()` updates configured git sources and selects the
repository providing the setup helpers based on the presence of
`scripts/oe-setup-build`. It then creates `oe-init-build-env-dir`
pointing at that repository, but there is no invariant or
configuration validation requiring that repository to also contain
`oe-init-build-env`.

For a configuration using `bb-layers` rather than `oe-template`,
`setup_bitbake_build()` does explicitly handle a missing
`oe-init-build-env`, so that state is already considered possible by
the code.

The problematic ordering is that on update an existing `build/conf` is
renamed and a new one is generated before that check happens. If the
updated source revision no longer provides `oe-init-build-env`, the
function logs the error and returns, leaving the regenerated
configuration in place; the caller then continues as though setup
succeeded.

The test removes `oe-init-build-env` from the next revision
specifically to reproduce that transition. I don't have evidence that
OE-Core itself has made such a transition, and I should have made that
clear in the commit message.

So the motivation is defensive handling of a supported source-update
failure path, not a failure I've observed in OE-Core.

If you consider the disappearance of `oe-init-build-env` outside the
supported contract despite the current handling for it, then I agree
the patch shouldn't be kept.

Giancarlo

On Wed, 19 Aug 2026 10:36:32 +0200, Alexander Kanavin
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Aug 2026 at 06:24, Giancarlo Cicellyn Comneno via
> lists.openembedded.org
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > + os.remove(os.path.join(self.testrepopath, 'oe-init-build-env'))
>
> This seems like a contrived scenario, so I'd like to understand it
> better. What prompted you to ask AI to write a patch for it? How can
> this happen in actual usage?
>
> Alex