[OE-core] [PATCH] classes/chrpath: trigger an error if chrpath fails

[Richard Purdie]

On Thu, 2012-08-16 at 18:13 +0100, Paul Eggleton wrote:
> On Wednesday 15 August 2012 17:44:33 Paul Eggleton wrote:
> > If chrpath failed here we were just silently ignoring it.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton at linux.intel.com>
> > ---
> >  meta/classes/chrpath.bbclass |    4 +++-
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/meta/classes/chrpath.bbclass b/meta/classes/chrpath.bbclass
> > index 10b5ca0..ad61fe0 100644
> > --- a/meta/classes/chrpath.bbclass
> > +++ b/meta/classes/chrpath.bbclass
> > @@ -74,7 +74,9 @@ def process_dir (directory, d):
> >              if len(new_rpaths):
> >                  args = ":".join(new_rpaths)
> >                  #bb.note("Setting rpath for %s to %s" %(fpath, args))
> > -                sub.call([cmd, '-r', args, fpath])
> > +                ret = sub.call([cmd, '-r', args, fpath])
> > +                if ret != 0:
> > +                    bb.error("chrpath command failed with exit code %d" %
> > ret)
> > 
> >              if perms:
> >                  os.chmod(fpath, perms)
> 
> I missed that this does not actually report the output from chrpath when it 
> fails because the task log is suppressed by virtue of calling bb.error. I will 
> send a follow-up patch to address this.
> 
> Incidentally a couple of users are reporting that they are now seeing failures 
> where the rpath size is reported to be too small to contain the path we are 
> applying. I haven't seen this myself - is there some way we can increase the 
> space allowed for storing the path or is there some other issue at work here? 
> I tried to search for some information on how storage of the rpath works but 
> did not really find anything conclusive.

Unfortunately we can't increase the size available without relinking the
binary which isn't feasible at this point. The only way to increase the
size is to run the build in a "deeper" path so that there is more room
in the field. I did some calculations when we originally implemented
this and concluded you'd have to build somewhere like /tmp to have a
short enough path where this would be a problem.

I thought we'd added a sanity test for it too but it sounds like either
we didn't or if we did, it isn't functioning properly. Its good that at
least we're catching the errors now and I'd appreciate more information
about the failing cases.

Cheers,

Richard