[oe] Reproducible builds (Was Re: Checksums in Bitbake)

[Tom Rini]

On Sat, 2010-03-27 at 19:31 +0100, GNUtoo wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-03-25 at 08:45 +0100, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
> > I've seen too often (also outside OE) that two engineers take the same
> > source yet still get different results, and that bugs at a customer
> > site cannot be reproduced in the lab (and yes, I do know there are
> > other ways to tackle this problem) 
> Also:
> bitbake optionaldep
> bitbake package
> And:
> bitbake package
> 
> could result in different binaries/packages due to configure picking
> optionaldep in the first case and not in the second one.
> 
> Maybe we should start hardcoding --without-optionaldep for all optional
> dependencies that are not in DEPENDS?
> 
> OR...maybe packaged-staging could save us from that issue?
> 
> ( http://marcin.juszkiewicz.com.pl/2008/07/01/packaged-staging-and-what-it-gives/ )

pstaging catches the implicit required deps, but not the implicit
optional deps.  IMHO it would be nice, and I think there's been a
general OK in this direction, to move towards DISTRO_FEATURES (or so?)
toggling --enable-<feature>.  That's what's needed in this particular
case.

-- 
Tom Rini <tom_rini at mentor.com>
Mentor Graphics Corporation