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

On 2026-05-06 08:43, Alexander Kanavin via lists.openembedded.org wrote:
> On Wed, 6 May 2026 at 12:23, Daiane Angolini
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 6. Run a pipeline, stopping after a particular step:
>>> $ bitbake-setup build <pipeline-name> --stop-after <step-name>
>>>
>>> Etc. How's this looking?
>>>
>> I like the term `steps`. I would like to add that this should be
>> optional, not required. One can still decide to avoid creating a
>> pipeline.
> Yes of course.
>
>> Regarding a setup tool for builds, why not use `bitbake
>> <pipeline-name>` instead of `bitbake-setup build <pipeline-name>`?
> bitbake operates on recipes using a well-known command line interface.
> We can't bolt on something entirely different.
>
> That said, pipeline functions don't have to be in bitbake-setup, they
> can be in a separate tool (Trevor mentioned that 'bitbake-setup' as a
> name doesn't fit that functionality very well). I just don't have any
> ideas off the top of my head. 'bitbake-pipeline' ?
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?
>
> 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]]
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>