<html>
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
  </head>
  <body>
    <p><br>
    </p>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/27/20 4:29 PM, Douglas Royds
      wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite"
      cite="mid:47d8bb87-b3be-1789-c1cb-124b446462d8@taitradio.com">
      <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
      <p>On 28/02/20 10:49 am, Joshua Watt wrote: </p>
      <blockquote type="cite">
        <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
          charset=UTF-8">
        <p><br>
        </p>
        <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/27/20 3:22 PM, Douglas Royds
          wrote:<br>
        </div>
        <blockquote type="cite"
          cite="mid:baae3c8f-219f-03eb-6f6c-a488ae22230b@taitradio.com">
          <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
            charset=UTF-8">
          <p>On 28/02/20 5:45 am, Joshua Watt wrote: </p>
          <blockquote type="cite">
            <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
              charset=UTF-8">
            <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/27/20 9:01 AM, Joshua Watt
              wrote:<br>
            </div>
            <blockquote type="cite"
              cite="mid:cce62b8e-b135-6daa-0c47-3e91955d248c@gmail.com">
              <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
                charset=UTF-8">
              <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/26/20 11:46 PM, Douglas
                Royds wrote:<br>
              </div>
              <blockquote type="cite"
                cite="mid:0319e121-7546-e456-50d6-4b224e87363f@taitradio.com">
                <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
                  charset=UTF-8">
                <p>On 26/02/20 4:53 am, Jacob Kroon wrote: </p>
                <blockquote type="cite">On 2/24/20 8:25 AM, Jacob Kroon
                  wrote: <br>
                  <blockquote type="cite">Hi Douglas, <br>
                    <br>
                    You updated a comment in reproducible_build.bbclass,
                    commit e7b891b76954c784f5a93bd0a1c91315673ce40d: <br>
                    <br>
                    <blockquote type="cite">-# Once the value of
                      SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is determined, it is stored in
                      the recipe's ${SDE_FILE}. <br>
                      +# Once the value of SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is
                      determined, it is stored in the recipe's SDE_FILE.
                      <br>
                      +# If none of these mechanisms are suitable,
                      replace the do_deploy_source_date_epoch task <br>
                      +# with recipe-specific functionality to write the
                      appropriate SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH into the SDE_FILE. <br>
                      +# <br>
                    </blockquote>
                    <br>
                    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:
                    <br>
                    <br>
                    do_create_source_date_epoch_stamp() { <br>
                         mkdir -p ${SDE_DIR} <br>
                         date -d "1981-03-03" "+%s" &gt; ${SDE_FILE} <br>
                    } <br>
                    <br>
                    What is the intended way to achieve the thing I'm
                    trying to do here ? <br>
                    <br>
                  </blockquote>
                  <br>
                  FYI, JPEW has a proposed patch here <br>
                  <br>
                  <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/commit/?h=jpew/reproducible&amp;id=d091d2aa53ea417f70c10f5ce89151820c3db9ce"
                    moz-do-not-send="true">http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/commit/?h=jpew/reproducible&amp;id=d091d2aa53ea417f70c10f5ce89151820c3db9ce</a>
                  <br>
                  <br>
                  for allowing a recipe to just set SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH
                  directly. <br>
                  <br>
                  But maybe that currently is at odds with
                  SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH being in BB_HASHBASE_WHITELIST ? <br>
                  <br>
                  /Jacob <br>
                </blockquote>
                <p><br>
                </p>
                <p>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.</p>
                <p>Joshua's proposed patch looks promising:</p>
                <ul>
                  <li>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.<br>
                  </li>
                </ul>
              </blockquote>
              <p>Having that be the first option makes sense. The only
                case in which that might not work, is if a recipe does
                something like:</p>
              <p> SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH =
                "${@my_awesome_sde_calculation(d)}"</p>
              <p>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.<br>
              </p>
              <p><br>
              </p>
              <blockquote type="cite"
                cite="mid:0319e121-7546-e456-50d6-4b224e87363f@taitradio.com">
                <ul>
                  <li> <br>
                  </li>
                  <li>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.<br>
                  </li>
                </ul>
              </blockquote>
              <p>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.<br>
              </p>
            </blockquote>
            <p>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.</p>
          </blockquote>
          <p><br>
          </p>
          <p>True.</p>
          <p>What to do? Would it work to use a different
            non-whitelisted variable in the recipe, eg.
            SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH_FIXED?<br>
          </p>
        </blockquote>
        <p><br>
        </p>
        <p>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.</p>
        <p><br>
        </p>
        <p>Another option that's at lot more "magic" would be something
          like this: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/commit/?h=jpew/reproducible&amp;id=2b524916cf35238ff3deea34017e8a4cd73926cd"
            moz-do-not-send="true">http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/commit/?h=jpew/reproducible&amp;id=2b524916cf35238ff3deea34017e8a4cd73926cd</a>
          <br>
        </p>
        <p>That's really weird, and I'm not sure I like it, but worth a
          thought.<br>
        </p>
      </blockquote>
      <p>If it works, it's good. I like the fact that the user can just
        set SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH directly in their recipe.<br>
      </p>
      <p>How about ...</p>
      <blockquote>
        <p>BB_HASHBASE_WHITELIST += "${@'SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH' if not
          source_date_epoch_var(d) else ''}"</p>
      </blockquote>
    </blockquote>
    <p>Ya, that works. The only reason I chose "is None" was in case a
      user really wanted to do <br>
    </p>
    <p>  SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH = "0"<br>
    </p>
    <p><br>
    </p>
    <p><br>
    </p>
  </body>
</html>