On 28/02/20 11:34 am, Joshua Watt wrote:
On 2/27/20 4:29 PM, Douglas Royds wrote:
On 28/02/20 10:49 am, Joshua Watt wrote:
On 2/27/20 3:22 PM, Douglas Royds wrote:
On 28/02/20 5:45 am, Joshua Watt wrote:
On 2/27/20 9:01 AM, Joshua Watt wrote:
On 2/26/20 11:46 PM, Douglas Royds wrote:
On 26/02/20 4:53 am, Jacob Kroon wrote:
On 2/24/20 8:25 AM, Jacob Kroon wrote:
Hi Douglas,
You updated a comment in reproducible_build.bbclass, commit
e7b891b76954c784f5a93bd0a1c91315673ce40d:
-# Once the value of SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is determined, it is
stored in the recipe's ${SDE_FILE}.
+# Once the value of SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is determined, it is
stored in the recipe's SDE_FILE.
+# If none of these mechanisms are suitable, replace the
do_deploy_source_date_epoch task
+# with recipe-specific functionality to write the
appropriate SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH into the SDE_FILE.
+#
But I can't really get this to work. What did work for me was
to replace "do_create_source_date_epoch_stamp()" in my recipe:
do_create_source_date_epoch_stamp() {
mkdir -p ${SDE_DIR}
date -d "1981-03-03" "+%s" > ${SDE_FILE}
}
What is the intended way to achieve the thing I'm trying to do
here ?
FYI, JPEW has a proposed patch here
http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/commit/?h=jpew/reproducible&id=d091d2aa53ea417f70c10f5ce89151820c3db9ce
for allowing a recipe to just set SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH directly.
But maybe that currently is at odds with SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH
being in BB_HASHBASE_WHITELIST ?
/Jacob
On the surface of it, my comment appears to be just wrong: It
does make sense to replace do_create_source_date_epoch_stamp()
as you suggest.
Joshua's proposed patch looks promising:
* Should the new function not be called first, so that it
takes priority over the git, known files, and youngest file
functions? If someone has explicitly set SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH,
then they want it to take priority.
Having that be the first option makes sense. The only case in
which that might not work, is if a recipe does something like:
SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH = "${@my_awesome_sde_calculation(d)}"
e.g. uses a function to get the SDE instead of setting to a fixed
value, but that's probably going to be extremely rare.
*
* As you observe, SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH would need to be removed
from BB_HASHBASE_WHITELIST. I'm not sure why it was in the
whitelist in the first place.
I'm not sure why exactly it is whitelisted; I didn't write the
original code that whitelisted it, but I've CC'd Juro in case he
happens to remember.
After a discussion with Richard, we figured out why
SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH has to be whitelisted. The value of the variable
*must* be calculable at parse time before any task is ran, but in
practice it's value is only available once the
__source_date_epoch.txt file is present, which is after parsing.
This causes the taskhash to be calculated differently during
parsing and task execution which causes taskhash mismatch errors.
True.
What to do? Would it work to use a different non-whitelisted
variable in the recipe, eg. SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH_FIXED?
Ya, that would work. You'd have to figure out how to get the
variable to be included in each taskhash even though it's not
directly referenced, but I'm sure that's possible.
Another option that's at lot more "magic" would be something like
this:
http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/commit/?h=jpew/reproducible&id=2b524916cf35238ff3deea34017e8a4cd73926cd
That's really weird, and I'm not sure I like it, but worth a thought.
If it works, it's good. I like the fact that the user can just set
SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH directly in their recipe.
How about ...
BB_HASHBASE_WHITELIST += "${@'SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH' if not
source_date_epoch_var(d) else ''}"
Ya, that works. The only reason I chose "is None" was in case a user
really wanted to do
SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH = "0"
True, best to allow for that.
--
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
