> On Oct 5, 2016, at 7:14 PM, Darcy Watkins <dwatk...@sierrawireless.com> wrote: > > > >> On Oct 5, 2016, at 4:52 PM, Khem Raj <raj.k...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Oct 5, 2016, at 4:45 PM, Randy Mortensen <ran...@stratagemsystems.com> >>> wrote: >>>> On Oct 5, 2016, at 5:04 PM, Darcy Watkins <dwatk...@sierrawireless.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> From what I gleaned from recent discussions of fetcher errors, this is >>>> somehow connected with rollout of Python related security fixes to various >>>> Linux distributions and/or some ...-native recipes. >>>> >>>> It was a bunch of tar balls that are named as mercurial hashes from within >>>> iced tea rather than the yocto fetch. I worked around it by grabbing the >>>> tarballs from a different checkout since I didn't have time to dig into it. >>>> >>>> It affected a fresh checkout I was building from scratch. >>>> >>> Thanks for the response. This also happened to me when trying to build from >>> scratch. >>> For my clarification, did you already have the tar balls downloaded or were >>> you able to download them from a previous (icedtea) commit somehow? > > I had the tar balls in a different build that I had around for some time. > The reason I never cached these ones in a shared location on our server was I > felt that tar balls with small hashes as filenames was too prone to > collisions, especially without a package name as a prefix. I don't know if > that is a convention of iced tea, or how the fetcher handles mercurial. > >> Can you check if the tarballs have been rebuilt upstream ? if so we should >> try to find out what changed. >> It could also be an oversight that a recipe update forgot or updated the >> checksums wrongly. but we should try to root cause it > > I agree here. We should root cause it. > > I’m not sure how this is all supposed to work, but I managed to get past the fetch failures by changing the md5sum and sha256sum checksums in icedtea7-native_2.1.3.bb. I used the the checksums helpfully suggested by bitbake when it reported the errors.
I compared one of the problematic tar balls with a “good” one from a previous download and the only change I could identify was 3 extra lines added to a hidden file .hgtag (which I presume maps a tag to a commit). Not sure why requesting the same hg commit results in a different tarball output. Now however iced tea fails to configure due to checksum errors. The configure task seems to re-download each tarball and check the sha256sum which is failing. I’m not sure where to go from here to try and resolve so any more help is welcome. -- _______________________________________________ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
