> On Oct 6, 2016, at 8:35 PM, Khem Raj <raj.k...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> On Oct 6, 2016, at 7:07 PM, Randy Mortensen <randy.m...@gmail.com >> <mailto: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 ? That seems likely but I don’t know how to fix that.
I also don’t understand why the configure task fails after the fetch task successfully downloads the tarballs. > > >> 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
