[OE-core] Overriding SDE_FILE

[Douglas Royds]

On 28/02/20 10:49 am, Joshua Watt wrote:

>
> On 2/27/20 3:22 PM, Douglas Royds wrote:
>>
>> On 28/02/20 5:45 am, Joshua Watt wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/27/20 9:01 AM, Joshua Watt wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>> After a discussion with Richard, we figured out why 
>>> SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH has to be whitelisted. The value of the variable 
>>> *must* be calculable at parse time before any task is ran, but in 
>>> practice it's value is only available once the 
>>> __source_date_epoch.txt file is present, which is after parsing. 
>>> This causes the taskhash to be calculated differently during parsing 
>>> and task execution which causes taskhash mismatch errors.
>>>
>>
>> True.
>>
>> What to do? Would it work to use a different non-whitelisted variable 
>> in the recipe, eg. SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH_FIXED?
>>
>
> Ya, that would work. You'd have to figure out how to get the variable 
> to be included in each taskhash even though it's not directly 
> referenced, but I'm sure that's possible.
>
>
> Another option that's at lot more "magic" would be something like 
> this: 
> http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/commit/?h=jpew/reproducible&id=2b524916cf35238ff3deea34017e8a4cd73926cd 
>
>
> That's really weird, and I'm not sure I like it, but worth a thought.
>
If it works, it's good. I like the fact that the user can just set 
SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH directly in their recipe.

How about ...

    BB_HASHBASE_WHITELIST += "${@'SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH' if not
    source_date_epoch_var(d) else ''}"

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/attachments/20200228/cf0b4941/attachment.html>