[OE-core] [oe-core][RFC] bitbake.conf: exclude whole MACHINEOVERRIDES from OVERRIDES vardeps

[Richard Purdie]

On Sun, 2012-08-05 at 12:31 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 08:48:52AM -0700, Chris Larson wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 8:45 AM, Richard Purdie
> > <richard.purdie at linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2012-07-23 at 16:25 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote:
> > >> * whole MACHINEOVERRIDES can change e.g. between MACHINES with different arm architecture, causing allarch packages to reexecute do_package
> > >>   bitbake-diffsigs ../shr-core/tmp-eglibc/stamps/all-oe-linux/xserver-nodm-init-2.0-r16.do_package.sigdata.90e760a8f6cecbd87cb2e95f1237e3cc ../shr-core/tmp-eglibc/stamps/all-oe-linux/xserver-nodm-init-2.0-r16.do_package.sigdata.9eeccfd15f25032b3b6b132534660fff
> > >>   basehash changed from 7618e17d3fda05d1f15246e6800ca0f0 to 97bc4dc8c1521c535bd96b2aa62d8a03
> > >>   Variable MACHINEOVERRIDES value changed from ${MACHINE}${@bb.utils.contains("TUNE_FEATURES", "armv5", ":armv5", "" ,d)}${@bb.utils.contains("TUNE_FEATURES", "armv4", ":armv4", "" ,d)}:${MACHINE_CLASS} to ${MACHINE}${@bb.utils.contains("TUNE_FEATURES", "armv7a", ":armv7a", "" ,d)}${@bb.utils.contains("TUNE_FEATURES", "armv6", ":armv6", "" ,d)}${@bb.utils.contains("TUNE_FEATURES", "armv5", ":armv5", "" ,d)}${@bb.utils.contains("TUNE_FEATURES", "armv4", ":armv4", "" ,d)}:${MACHINE_CLASS}
> > >>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Martin Jansa <Martin.Jansa at gmail.com>
> > >> ---
> > >>  meta/conf/bitbake.conf |    1 +
> > >>  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > Won't this hide genuine changes where things should get rebuilt too?
> > 
> > If something uses a machine override, won't the overridden value for
> > that variable be the one which is stored in the checksum? So any
> > effects of this will result in checksum modification anyway, no?
> 
> I think it was possible to find different local file in SRC_URI (in
> different override subdirectory), but now with local file checksums
> included in sstate checksum it should be safe too.

Yes, I think this should be safe now and will take the patch.

Cheers,

Richard