[oe] RFC: Add http_proxy and ftp_proxy to BitBake white list
Denys Dmytriyenko
denis at denix.org
Wed Nov 12 18:44:16 UTC 2008
On Sun, Nov 09, 2008 at 01:22:14PM +0000, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-11-07 at 14:57 -0500, Cliff Brake wrote:
> > I've attempted to merge your patches and test, but the http_proxy is
> > still not preserved for wget. A few notes:
> >
> > wget does not pass through runfetchcmd() so exportvars stuff never
> > gets called there.
> >
> > try_mirror also has some http_proxy stuff, but it does not appear to
> > be used by wget.
> >
> > wget.py looks at HTTP_PROXY, but why HTTP_PROXY vs http_proxy? If I
> > set HTTP_PROXY in local.conf, it then works.
Richard,
Thanks for your work.
> For various reasons I've now had some experience of using bitbake behind
> some pretty strict proxy setups. The problem is that its not as simple
> as just setting http_proxy since some addresses need to go through the
> proxy but things like a local source mirror might be on an internal
> network and therefore shouldn't go through the proxy.
Why not use the standard $no_proxy environment variable to list addresses
inside the firewall?
> I hence reworked things so you set HTTP_PROXY but can also set
> HTTP_PROXY_IGNORE which is a list of base urls which should not use the
> proxy. The fetcher code will only set http_proxy to HTTP_PROXY if the
> url is not in the ignore list.
>
> FTP_PROXY and ftp_proxy works in a similar way.
Looks redundant, as it can be achieved like this:
$ export http_proxy=proxy.company.com:80
$ export no_proxy=company.com,interweb.net
> > So, is the idea the user has to set HTTP_PROXY in a conf file for wget
> > proxy to work? What are the downsides to using http_proxy from the
> > environment? At any rate, it seems like we have some inconsistencies
> > in the various fetcher methods.
>
> The idea is the user sets HTTP_PROXY and optionally HTTP_PROXY_IGNORE to
> make http proxying work. I'm planning to make bitbake ignore http_proxy
> from the environment due to the problems is causes with mirror servers
> behind the proxy.
>
> Hopefully this clears up the intent of the patches, the improvements are
> based on real world usage problems.
Even though I'd prefer it to be fixed properly with 15-year-old http_proxy and
no_proxy environment variables, it does not matter too much, as long as any
kind of http/ftp proxy support is merged into upstream BitBake, please. :)
Thanks.
--
Denys
More information about the Openembedded-devel
mailing list