[OE-core] Overriding SDE_FILE

[Joshua Watt]

On 2/26/20 11:46 PM, Douglas Royds wrote:
>
> On 26/02/20 4:53 am, Jacob Kroon wrote:
>
>> On 2/24/20 8:25 AM, Jacob Kroon wrote:
>>> Hi Douglas,
>>>
>>> You updated a comment in reproducible_build.bbclass, commit 
>>> e7b891b76954c784f5a93bd0a1c91315673ce40d:
>>>
>>>> -# Once the value of SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is determined, it is stored 
>>>> in the recipe's ${SDE_FILE}.
>>>> +# Once the value of SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is determined, it is stored 
>>>> in the recipe's SDE_FILE.
>>>> +# If none of these mechanisms are suitable, replace the 
>>>> do_deploy_source_date_epoch task
>>>> +# with recipe-specific functionality to write the appropriate 
>>>> SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH into the SDE_FILE.
>>>> +#
>>>
>>> But I can't really get this to work. What did work for me was to 
>>> replace "do_create_source_date_epoch_stamp()" in my recipe:
>>>
>>> do_create_source_date_epoch_stamp() {
>>>      mkdir -p ${SDE_DIR}
>>>      date -d "1981-03-03" "+%s" > ${SDE_FILE}
>>> }
>>>
>>> What is the intended way to achieve the thing I'm trying to do here ?
>>>
>>
>> FYI, JPEW has a proposed patch here
>>
>> http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/commit/?h=jpew/reproducible&id=d091d2aa53ea417f70c10f5ce89151820c3db9ce 
>>
>>
>> for allowing a recipe to just set SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH directly.
>>
>> But maybe that currently is at odds with SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH being in 
>> BB_HASHBASE_WHITELIST ?
>>
>> /Jacob
>
>
> On the surface of it, my comment appears to be just wrong: It does 
> make sense to replace do_create_source_date_epoch_stamp() as you suggest.
>
> Joshua's proposed patch looks promising:
>
>   * Should the new function not be called first, so that it takes
>     priority over the git, known files, and youngest file functions?
>     If someone has explicitly set SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH, then they want it
>     to take priority.
>
Having that be the first option makes sense. The only case in which that 
might not work, is if a recipe does something like:

  SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH = "${@my_awesome_sde_calculation(d)}"

e.g. uses a function to get the SDE instead of setting to a fixed value, 
but that's probably going to be extremely rare.


>  *
>
>
>
>   * As you observe, SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH would need to be removed from
>     BB_HASHBASE_WHITELIST. I'm not sure why it was in the whitelist in
>     the first place.
>
I'm not sure why exactly it is whitelisted; I didn't write the original 
code that whitelisted it, but I've CC'd Juro in case he happens to remember.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/attachments/20200227/9d297588/attachment.html>