[OE-core] [PATCH 2/2] uninative: Switch from bz2 to xz

[akuster808]

On 5/30/19 1:13 AM, richard.purdie at linuxfoundation.org wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-05-30 at 02:02 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>> On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 06:29:20PM -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 01:17:26AM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>>>> On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 10:29:31PM +0100, 
>>>> richard.purdie at linuxfoundation.org wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 2019-05-29 at 17:25 -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 09:50:22PM +0100, 
>>>>>> richard.purdie at linuxfoundation.org wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 2019-05-29 at 13:39 -0700, akuster808 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/29/19 12:26 PM, richard.purdie at linuxfoundation.org
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 2019-05-29 at 12:21 -0700, akuster808 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/29/19 11:43 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> (From OE-Core rev:
>>>>>>>>>>> 29fc9210b973be68de474e75068e4c72371afe5a)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <
>>>>>>>>>>> richard.purdie at linuxfoundation.org>
>>>>>>>>>> With back port to warrior and Thud too?
>>>>>>>>> Yes, we'll need to do that if we bring fedora 30
>>>>>>>>> workers online
>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> autobuilder.
>>>>>>>> I know the uninative update is required for FC30 but
>>>>>>>> changing the
>>>>>>>> compression does not.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This question is about the compression extension
>>>>>>>> question.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Does this mean YP will no longer be providing bz2
>>>>>>>> uninatives?
>>>>>>> Correct, the patch should be straight forward to include
>>>>>>> with the
>>>>>>> upgrade.
>>>>>> Does that in turn mean we must have host xz-utils?
>>>>> It will mean you need a tar which supports the -J option. The
>>>>> tests
>>>>> I've see so far suggest all our oldest supported distros do...
>>>> For thud tar >= 1.27 is required, -J was added in 1.22.
>>>>
>>>> But Tom is asking about something different:
>>>> tar calls "xz -d" for decompression, which needs xz-utils
>>>> installed.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.yoctoproject.org/docs/2.6/ref-manual/ref-manual.html#required-packages-for-the-build-host 
>>>> documents that xz has to be installed, but looking at 
>>>> meta/conf/bitbake.conf it might be missing in HOSTTOOLS.
> uninative runs in a weird early non-worker context and doesn't actually
> use HOSTTOOLS so luckily we're covered from that angle.
>
>>> I think it's also missing in for example the crops containers.  So
>>> if
>>> we're going to backport it, I think maybe we should keep it
>>> bz2?  The
>>> size difference can't be that much.
>> The size difference is surprisingly high - a factor of 5 (sic).
>> But in practice the difference between 5 MB and 26 MB
>> shouldn't really matter.
> I'm torn, partly as if we stick with bz2, we effectively do that
> perpetually and given the size difference, we should switch.
>
> Tim mentions we could fix the crops container and I'm tempted to switch
> given we're so close with the current patchset...
>
> We can add xz to HOSTTOOLS in master and that makes sense for a number
> of other reasons but gets tricky as we can't add it to ASSUME_PROVIDED
> as easily due to the libs it provides. I think we only need to worry
> about this on master though.
So.. Can we have a bz and xz version built until thud is in community
supported and update Warrior to use xz ?

- Armin
> Cheers,
>
> Richard
>
>
>