On Wed, 10 August 2011 8:06 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 02:06 +0000, James Limbouris wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 10 August 2011 9:55 AM, Mark Hatle wrote:
> > > On 8/9/11 7:32 PM, Scott Garman wrote:
> > > > On 08/08/2011 07:04 PM, James Limbouris wrote:
> > > >> The pseudo executable sets the PSEUDO_LOCALSTATEDIR
> environment
> > > >> variable to point to a sysroot location. During an initial cache
> > > >> build, in which pseudo is not used as it is being built, the
> > > >> PSEUDO_LOCALSTATEDIR is set to a per-package location by
> > > >> bitbake.conf,
> > > and baked into the cache.
> > > >> If the cache is subsequently invalidated, bitbake may run under
> > > >> pseudo, and rebuild it with the sysroot location baked into the
> > > >> cache. This results in all packages using the same, persistent
> > > >> db, even on package rebuild, which leads to permissions errors.
> > > >> Making the assignment unconditional corrects this problem.
> > > >
> > > > I can't tell if this change would impact the use of
> > > > useradd.bbclass, which also sets PSEUDO_LOCALSTATEDIR in certain
> > > > circumstances. Mark, can you comment on whether this is a valid
> concern?
> > >
> > > I've been trying to figure that out as well. From what I can tell,
> > > as long as the value is "${WORKDIR}/pseudo", and it's evaluated at
> > > use time -- vs immediately.. we should be good, even with the
> useradd.bbclass.
> > >
> > > (If I remember correctly, the workdir for the useradd still should
> > > either be the package itself, or the sysroot directory. That should
> > > be changing during the various steps, as necessary.)
> > >
> > > Frankly I'm still a little confused as to what is happening
> > > differently from the "=" to the "?=" case. My understanding is that
> > > one should indicate "it's always this value", and the other is "use
> > > this value if one has not already been set."
> > > Either way we should get the same result, and the same result
> > > should end up in any caches. If it's not the same, this might be
> > > pointing to a different bug -- or my understanding of the processing of
> the variables is wrong.
> > >
> > > So for the purposes of useradd, I don't see a problem here.. I also
> > > don't see any issues with the general case.. but I do wonder why
> > > it's needed for the cache to work properly.
> > >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > The problem is that the pseudo executable sets the environment
> > variable before starting its argument (bitbake) up, but we do not
> > always use pseudo to start bitbake. So sometimes the variable is set
> > to the sysroot, and sometimes it is set (by the conditional assignment in
> bitbake.conf) to the workdir.
>
> Something here isn't adding up correctly to me.
>
> bitbake should not be seeing any PSEUDO_LOCALSTATEDIR from the pseudo
> binary since its not a whitelisted environment variable. The ?= should
> therefore always being assigned as there wouldn't be a previous version of
> the variable.
>
> I'd like to understand what value the variable is taking (which would stop the
> ?= applying).
>
> Are you using BB_PRESERVE_ENV ?
>
Hi,
I had another go at debugging. What happens is bitbake/lib/bb/cooker.py:166
reimports the environment after it has been cleaned (!). It is then recleaned
at some time during the parsing of bitbake.conf, but after the conditional
assignment of PSEUDO_LOCALSTATEDIR. I wasn't patient enough to find out when
exactly.
Worse, I don't think bitbake.conf is guaranteed to be in the same spot in every
layers.conf, so different layers will parse with different environments.
James
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
