> On Oct 6, 2016, at 7:07 PM, Randy Mortensen <randy.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> 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. >
could it be that its generating the tarballs from mercurial directly and thats flawed somehow ? > 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. > >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
-- _______________________________________________ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
