[OE-core] Overriding SDE_FILE

[Douglas Royds]

On 28/02/20 11:34 am, Joshua Watt wrote:

>
> On 2/27/20 4:29 PM, Douglas Royds wrote:
>>
>> 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 ''}"
>>
> Ya, that works. The only reason I chose "is None" was in case a user 
> really wanted to do
>
>   SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH = "0"
>
True, best to allow for that.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/attachments/20200228/ebb3af27/attachment.html>