[PATCH 0/1] Fix weird rebuild issue even when sstate signature doesn't change

[PATCH 0/1] Fix weird rebuild issue even when sstate signature doesn't change

[Kevin Tian]

This patch is to fix one weird issue I've keeping seeing recently when using sstate.
Even with a minimal build, there're around 50 recipes rebuilt from scratch even though
sstate packages in sstate_cache do match. Actually the end result is to just overwrite
sstate packages again with same sigature for those recipes.
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/pipermail/poky/2010-December/001063.html

The cause for this mess is from misinterpretation of the index of a list, which then
points to wrong setscene tasks instead of desired ones. The end result is that some
tasks which don't need execution are scheduled while other setscene tasks which need
run are simply skipped.

It's based on Paul's sstate branch.

Pull URL: git://git.pokylinux.org/poky-contrib.git
  Branch: tk/sstate
  Browse: http://git.pokylinux.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/log/?h=tk/sstate

Thanks,
    Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>
---


Kevin Tian (1):
  runqueue.py: use correct task ID when checking validity of setscene
    tasks

 bitbake/lib/bb/runqueue.py |   16 +++++++++++-----
 1 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

Re: [PATCH 0/1] Fix weird rebuild issue even when sstate signature doesn't change

[Richard Purdie]

On Tue, 2010-12-14 at 21:40 +0800, Kevin Tian wrote:
> This patch is to fix one weird issue I've keeping seeing recently when using sstate.
> Even with a minimal build, there're around 50 recipes rebuilt from scratch even though
> sstate packages in sstate_cache do match. Actually the end result is to just overwrite
> sstate packages again with same sigature for those recipes.
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/pipermail/poky/2010-December/001063.html
> 
> The cause for this mess is from misinterpretation of the index of a list, which then
> points to wrong setscene tasks instead of desired ones. The end result is that some
> tasks which don't need execution are scheduled while other setscene tasks which need
> run are simply skipped.
> 
> It's based on Paul's sstate branch.

I've merged this patch into master, good catch and hopefully this gets
sstate into a good working state.

I've merged an updated version of Paul's sstate branch too.

I'm hoping this makes sstate packages finally usable!

Cheers,

Richard

Re: [PATCH 0/1] Fix weird rebuild issue even when sstate signature doesn't change

[Tian, Kevin]

>From: Richard Purdie [mailto:richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org]
>Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 5:12 PM
>
>On Tue, 2010-12-14 at 21:40 +0800, Kevin Tian wrote:
>> This patch is to fix one weird issue I've keeping seeing recently when using sstate.
>> Even with a minimal build, there're around 50 recipes rebuilt from scratch even though
>> sstate packages in sstate_cache do match. Actually the end result is to just overwrite
>> sstate packages again with same sigature for those recipes.
>> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/pipermail/poky/2010-December/001063.html
>>
>> The cause for this mess is from misinterpretation of the index of a list, which then
>> points to wrong setscene tasks instead of desired ones. The end result is that some
>> tasks which don't need execution are scheduled while other setscene tasks which need
>> run are simply skipped.
>>
>> It's based on Paul's sstate branch.
>
>I've merged this patch into master, good catch and hopefully this gets
>sstate into a good working state.
>
>I've merged an updated version of Paul's sstate branch too.
>
>I'm hoping this makes sstate packages finally usable!
>

I think now it's on much better shape. I tried minimal build with both same and different
source dir. Only three packages are out of the scope:
	linux-yocto
	task-poky-boot
	poky-image-minimal

poky-image-minimal is expected. task-poky-boot is caused by linux-yocto.do_deploy. The
reason why linux-yocto.do_deploy fails to match is because it depends on DATETIME.

However there's one issue preventing me to come up a fix, which will be sent out in a
separate thread for suggestion.

Thanks
Kevin

Re: [PATCH 0/1] Fix weird rebuild issue even when sstate signature doesn't change

[Gary Thomas]

On 12/15/2010 02:12 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-12-14 at 21:40 +0800, Kevin Tian wrote:
>> This patch is to fix one weird issue I've keeping seeing recently when using sstate.
>> Even with a minimal build, there're around 50 recipes rebuilt from scratch even though
>> sstate packages in sstate_cache do match. Actually the end result is to just overwrite
>> sstate packages again with same sigature for those recipes.
>> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/pipermail/poky/2010-December/001063.html
>>
>> The cause for this mess is from misinterpretation of the index of a list, which then
>> points to wrong setscene tasks instead of desired ones. The end result is that some
>> tasks which don't need execution are scheduled while other setscene tasks which need
>> run are simply skipped.
>>
>> It's based on Paul's sstate branch.
>
> I've merged this patch into master, good catch and hopefully this gets
> sstate into a good working state.
>
> I've merged an updated version of Paul's sstate branch too.
>
> I'm hoping this makes sstate packages finally usable!

Mucho bettero (TM) :-)

I just tried this from master and at least on the same machine
but different build paths, it performed much as hoped.  My initial
build (step 1) took some 165 minutes, building the same target using
the sstate cache from step 1 took only 22.  The only packages rebuilt
during step 2 were the kernel and the image tasks (I tested this with
my own image+kernel recipes, so it's OK if this differs a little from
other's results).

Bottom line, it seems to be working much better now.

Note to Paul: I also still see lots of LD_PRELOAD messages like
   ERROR: ld.so: object 'libpseudo.so' from LD_PRELOAD cannot be preloaded: ignored.
but they did not seem to affect the result.

Note to Richard: I'm still seeing a ton of Noexec messages every time I rebuild
a package in this tree.  I thought I understood you to say they should happen
at most once?

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Thomas                 |  Consulting for the
MLB Associates              |    Embedded world
------------------------------------------------------------

Re: [PATCH 0/1] Fix weird rebuild issue even when sstate signature doesn't change

[Paul Eggleton]

On Wednesday 15 December 2010 16:10:16 you wrote:
> Note to Paul: I also still see lots of LD_PRELOAD messages like
>    ERROR: ld.so: object 'libpseudo.so' from LD_PRELOAD cannot be preloaded: ignored.
> but they did not seem to affect the result.

I think whether or not this causes breakage depends on BB_NUMBER_THREADS, the performance of your machine, etc. as it appears to be an order of operations issue.

Cheers,
Paul

Re: [PATCH 0/1] Fix weird rebuild issue even when sstate signature doesn't change

[Tian, Kevin]

>From: Gary Thomas [mailto:gary@mlbassoc.com]
>Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 12:10 AM
>
>On 12/15/2010 02:12 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
>> On Tue, 2010-12-14 at 21:40 +0800, Kevin Tian wrote:
>>> This patch is to fix one weird issue I've keeping seeing recently when using sstate.
>>> Even with a minimal build, there're around 50 recipes rebuilt from scratch even though
>>> sstate packages in sstate_cache do match. Actually the end result is to just overwrite
>>> sstate packages again with same sigature for those recipes.
>>> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/pipermail/poky/2010-December/001063.html
>>>
>>> The cause for this mess is from misinterpretation of the index of a list, which then
>>> points to wrong setscene tasks instead of desired ones. The end result is that some
>>> tasks which don't need execution are scheduled while other setscene tasks which need
>>> run are simply skipped.
>>>
>>> It's based on Paul's sstate branch.
>>
>> I've merged this patch into master, good catch and hopefully this gets
>> sstate into a good working state.
>>
>> I've merged an updated version of Paul's sstate branch too.
>>
>> I'm hoping this makes sstate packages finally usable!
>
>Mucho bettero (TM) :-)
>
>I just tried this from master and at least on the same machine
>but different build paths, it performed much as hoped.  My initial
>build (step 1) took some 165 minutes, building the same target using
>the sstate cache from step 1 took only 22.  The only packages rebuilt
>during step 2 were the kernel and the image tasks (I tested this with
>my own image+kernel recipes, so it's OK if this differs a little from
>other's results).

Good to see that. :-)

Thanks
Kevin

Re: [PATCH 0/1] Fix weird rebuild issue even when sstate signature doesn't change

[Tian, Kevin]

>From: Gary Thomas [mailto:gary@mlbassoc.com]
>Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 12:10 AM
>
>Note to Richard: I'm still seeing a ton of Noexec messages every time I rebuild
>a package in this tree.  I thought I understood you to say they should happen
>at most once?
>

Yes, RP's previous patch does reduce the Noexec messages a lot. However there
remains one problem. Current stamp file check also calculates the stamp of tasks
depended on. If those stamps are newer or not exist, the check return False to
indicate mismatched stamp.

In 'noexec' case, some 'noexec' tasks happen to have some dependent tasks
skipped which thus don't generate stamp files. This makes the check always
failed for those 'noexec' tasks and thus you always observe the Noexec messages.

I have a patch to fix that, and will send out soon. :-)

Thanks
Kevin

about 'noexec' message

[Tian, Kevin]

>From: Tian, Kevin
>Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 4:46 PM
>
>>From: Gary Thomas [mailto:gary@mlbassoc.com]
>>Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 12:10 AM
>>
>>Note to Richard: I'm still seeing a ton of Noexec messages every time I rebuild
>>a package in this tree.  I thought I understood you to say they should happen
>>at most once?
>>
>
>Yes, RP's previous patch does reduce the Noexec messages a lot. However there
>remains one problem. Current stamp file check also calculates the stamp of tasks
>depended on. If those stamps are newer or not exist, the check return False to
>indicate mismatched stamp.
>
>In 'noexec' case, some 'noexec' tasks happen to have some dependent tasks
>skipped which thus don't generate stamp files. This makes the check always
>failed for those 'noexec' tasks and thus you always observe the Noexec messages.
>
>I have a patch to fix that, and will send out soon. :-)
>

Though I managed to remove the rest 'noexec' messages by adding below in 
check_stamp_task():

	if 'noexec' in taskdep and taskname in taskdep['noexec']
		return True

I realized there's one potential risk. Though 'noexec' task is not executed at all,
it's considered to be a normal task which normally plays the role of the sync
points. Ideally if there're changes on stamp file of tasks that this 'noexec' task
depends on, we still want to generate a new stamp file for the 'noexec' task.
That way other tasks depending on that 'noexec' task will trigger rebuild too.

If we always take 'noexec' task away from the comparison, above chain effect
disappears.

Current comparison condition for stamp files is:

	if not t2 or t1 < t2
		iscurrent = False

I'm not sure under which case a stamp file (t2) doesn't exist, and whether it's
safe to use:
	if not t2 and not noexec or t2 and t1 < t2:
		iscurrent = False

to check stamp file for 'noexec' task.

Or alternative is to simply convert bb.note to bb.debug for 'noexec' message. :-)

Thanks
Kevin

Re: about 'noexec' message

[Richard Purdie]

On Thu, 2010-12-16 at 17:48 +0800, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> >From: Tian, Kevin
> >Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 4:46 PM
> >
> >>From: Gary Thomas [mailto:gary@mlbassoc.com]
> >>Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 12:10 AM
> >>
> >>Note to Richard: I'm still seeing a ton of Noexec messages every time I rebuild
> >>a package in this tree.  I thought I understood you to say they should happen
> >>at most once?
> >>
> >
> >Yes, RP's previous patch does reduce the Noexec messages a lot. However there
> >remains one problem. Current stamp file check also calculates the stamp of tasks
> >depended on. If those stamps are newer or not exist, the check return False to
> >indicate mismatched stamp.
> >
> >In 'noexec' case, some 'noexec' tasks happen to have some dependent tasks
> >skipped which thus don't generate stamp files. This makes the check always
> >failed for those 'noexec' tasks and thus you always observe the Noexec messages.
> >
> >I have a patch to fix that, and will send out soon. :-)
> >
> 
> Though I managed to remove the rest 'noexec' messages by adding below in 
> check_stamp_task():
> 
> 	if 'noexec' in taskdep and taskname in taskdep['noexec']
> 		return True
> 
> I realized there's one potential risk. Though 'noexec' task is not executed at all,
> it's considered to be a normal task which normally plays the role of the sync
> points. Ideally if there're changes on stamp file of tasks that this 'noexec' task
> depends on, we still want to generate a new stamp file for the 'noexec' task.
> That way other tasks depending on that 'noexec' task will trigger rebuild too.
> 
> If we always take 'noexec' task away from the comparison, above chain effect
> disappears.
> 
> Current comparison condition for stamp files is:
> 
> 	if not t2 or t1 < t2
> 		iscurrent = False
> 
> I'm not sure under which case a stamp file (t2) doesn't exist, and whether it's
> safe to use:
> 	if not t2 and not noexec or t2 and t1 < t2:
> 		iscurrent = False
> 
> to check stamp file for 'noexec' task.
> 
> Or alternative is to simply convert bb.note to bb.debug for 'noexec' message. :-)

I've looked at this and realised that scenequeue should not be trying to
skip noexec tasks as this means the stamps don't get generated. Instead,
it should just failoutright and let the secondary code in the main
runqueue deal with them at the correct point in time.

I've pushed this change, lets see if it solves the issues people have
been seeing. It certainly makes the output from bitbake more readable
again.

Cheers,

Richard

Re: about 'noexec' message

[Tian, Kevin]

>From: Richard Purdie [mailto:richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org]
>Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 11:19 PM
>
>On Thu, 2010-12-16 at 17:48 +0800, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>> >From: Tian, Kevin
>> >Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 4:46 PM
>> >
>> >>From: Gary Thomas [mailto:gary@mlbassoc.com]
>> >>Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 12:10 AM
>> >>
>> >>Note to Richard: I'm still seeing a ton of Noexec messages every time I rebuild
>> >>a package in this tree.  I thought I understood you to say they should happen
>> >>at most once?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Yes, RP's previous patch does reduce the Noexec messages a lot. However there
>> >remains one problem. Current stamp file check also calculates the stamp of tasks
>> >depended on. If those stamps are newer or not exist, the check return False to
>> >indicate mismatched stamp.
>> >
>> >In 'noexec' case, some 'noexec' tasks happen to have some dependent tasks
>> >skipped which thus don't generate stamp files. This makes the check always
>> >failed for those 'noexec' tasks and thus you always observe the Noexec messages.
>> >
>> >I have a patch to fix that, and will send out soon. :-)
>> >
>>
>> Though I managed to remove the rest 'noexec' messages by adding below in
>> check_stamp_task():
>>
>> 	if 'noexec' in taskdep and taskname in taskdep['noexec']
>> 		return True
>>
>> I realized there's one potential risk. Though 'noexec' task is not executed at all,
>> it's considered to be a normal task which normally plays the role of the sync
>> points. Ideally if there're changes on stamp file of tasks that this 'noexec' task
>> depends on, we still want to generate a new stamp file for the 'noexec' task.
>> That way other tasks depending on that 'noexec' task will trigger rebuild too.
>>
>> If we always take 'noexec' task away from the comparison, above chain effect
>> disappears.
>>
>> Current comparison condition for stamp files is:
>>
>> 	if not t2 or t1 < t2
>> 		iscurrent = False
>>
>> I'm not sure under which case a stamp file (t2) doesn't exist, and whether it's
>> safe to use:
>> 	if not t2 and not noexec or t2 and t1 < t2:
>> 		iscurrent = False
>>
>> to check stamp file for 'noexec' task.
>>
>> Or alternative is to simply convert bb.note to bb.debug for 'noexec' message. :-)
>
>I've looked at this and realised that scenequeue should not be trying to
>skip noexec tasks as this means the stamps don't get generated. Instead,
>it should just failoutright and let the secondary code in the main
>runqueue deal with them at the correct point in time.
>
>I've pushed this change, lets see if it solves the issues people have
>been seeing. It certainly makes the output from bitbake more readable
>again.
>

yes, this makes the output pretty clean now. thanks for the fix.

In the meantime I'm curious how your fix solves the issue, as I can't map your
commit message to the change. Sorry that I may need your help here. :-)

It looks that with your fix those 'noexec' setscene tasks which are originally skipped
now still enter the main runqueue logic to get their stamps file generated, and thus
later when normal 'noexec' tasks are checked all dependent tasks have got their
stamp files ready. Is it true?

However I didn't see much difference between task_failoutright and task_skip, which
neither touches the stamp file. Could you shed some light how this impacts the main 
runqueue logic. I search the code, it looks that only when a task is actually scheduled
to run ("exec_task") make_stamp() is invoked...

Last question for the check_stamp_task condition:

+                    if not t2:
+                        bb.msg.debug(2, bb.msg.domain.RunQueue, "Stampfile %s d
                         iscurrent = False
+                    if t1 < t2:
+                        bb.msg.debug(2, bb.msg.domain.RunQueue, "Stampfile %s <
+                        iscurrent = False
+

Under which case a task depended by others may not get its stamp file ready?

Thanks
Kevin

Re: about 'noexec' message

[Tian, Kevin]

>From: Richard Purdie [mailto:richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org]
>Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 11:19 PM
>
>On Thu, 2010-12-16 at 17:48 +0800, Tian, Kevin wrote:
>> >From: Tian, Kevin
>> >Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 4:46 PM
>> >
>> >>From: Gary Thomas [mailto:gary@mlbassoc.com]
>> >>Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 12:10 AM
>> >>
>> >>Note to Richard: I'm still seeing a ton of Noexec messages every time I rebuild
>> >>a package in this tree.  I thought I understood you to say they should happen
>> >>at most once?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Yes, RP's previous patch does reduce the Noexec messages a lot. However there
>> >remains one problem. Current stamp file check also calculates the stamp of tasks
>> >depended on. If those stamps are newer or not exist, the check return False to
>> >indicate mismatched stamp.
>> >
>> >In 'noexec' case, some 'noexec' tasks happen to have some dependent tasks
>> >skipped which thus don't generate stamp files. This makes the check always
>> >failed for those 'noexec' tasks and thus you always observe the Noexec messages.
>> >
>> >I have a patch to fix that, and will send out soon. :-)
>> >
>>
>> Though I managed to remove the rest 'noexec' messages by adding below in
>> check_stamp_task():
>>
>> 	if 'noexec' in taskdep and taskname in taskdep['noexec']
>> 		return True
>>
>> I realized there's one potential risk. Though 'noexec' task is not executed at all,
>> it's considered to be a normal task which normally plays the role of the sync
>> points. Ideally if there're changes on stamp file of tasks that this 'noexec' task
>> depends on, we still want to generate a new stamp file for the 'noexec' task.
>> That way other tasks depending on that 'noexec' task will trigger rebuild too.
>>
>> If we always take 'noexec' task away from the comparison, above chain effect
>> disappears.
>>
>> Current comparison condition for stamp files is:
>>
>> 	if not t2 or t1 < t2
>> 		iscurrent = False
>>
>> I'm not sure under which case a stamp file (t2) doesn't exist, and whether it's
>> safe to use:
>> 	if not t2 and not noexec or t2 and t1 < t2:
>> 		iscurrent = False
>>
>> to check stamp file for 'noexec' task.
>>
>> Or alternative is to simply convert bb.note to bb.debug for 'noexec' message. :-)
>
>I've looked at this and realised that scenequeue should not be trying to
>skip noexec tasks as this means the stamps don't get generated. Instead,
>it should just failoutright and let the secondary code in the main
>runqueue deal with them at the correct point in time.
>
>I've pushed this change, lets see if it solves the issues people have
>been seeing. It certainly makes the output from bitbake more readable
>again.
>

Unfortunately I think this causes another problem when using sstate. I got an error
from m4-native when building from scratch (with prebuilt available):

ERROR: install: cannot stat `xxx/tmp/sysroots/i686-linux/usr/share/gnu-config/config.sub

Actually from the log gnu-config.do_populate_sysroot has been accelerated earlier in
setscene stage, with necessary sysroot files installed. However later gnu-config-native
is still considered requiring rebuild, and thus the installed sysroot files are removed again.
The weird thing under this condition is that m4-native thought that do_populate_sysroot
of gnu-config-native has been completed and thus doesn't wait for new build of 
gnu-config-native to complete, which then triggers above error.

I haven't figure out the reason why this commit causes this confliction: sstate package
is installed successfully but the package still requires rebuild. By reverting this change
this error disappears.

Thanks
Kevin

Re: about 'noexec' message

[Richard Purdie]

On Fri, 2010-12-17 at 12:23 +0800, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> Unfortunately I think this causes another problem when using sstate. I got an error
> from m4-native when building from scratch (with prebuilt available):
> 
> ERROR: install: cannot stat `xxx/tmp/sysroots/i686-linux/usr/share/gnu-config/config.sub
> 
> Actually from the log gnu-config.do_populate_sysroot has been accelerated earlier in
> setscene stage, with necessary sysroot files installed. However later gnu-config-native
> is still considered requiring rebuild, and thus the installed sysroot files are removed again.
> The weird thing under this condition is that m4-native thought that do_populate_sysroot
> of gnu-config-native has been completed and thus doesn't wait for new build of 
> gnu-config-native to complete, which then triggers above error.
> 
> I haven't figure out the reason why this commit causes this confliction: sstate package
> is installed successfully but the package still requires rebuild. By reverting this change
> this error disappears.

I made some assumptions in the fix I pushed which weren't correct but
didn't show up under the testing I gave it. The real underlying issue is
that the XXX_setscene stamps are never created for setscene noexec
tasks. I've pushed a fix which does this now:

http://git.pokylinux.org/cgit.cgi/poky/commit/?id=a86f960f651c561bb104723aa0b4cd0922a3425a

Cheers,

Richard

Re: [PATCH 0/1] Fix weird rebuild issue even when sstate signature doesn't change

[Richard Purdie]

On Thu, 2010-12-16 at 16:45 +0800, Tian, Kevin wrote:
> >From: Gary Thomas [mailto:gary@mlbassoc.com]
> >Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 12:10 AM
> >
> >Note to Richard: I'm still seeing a ton of Noexec messages every time I rebuild
> >a package in this tree.  I thought I understood you to say they should happen
> >at most once?
> >
> 
> Yes, RP's previous patch does reduce the Noexec messages a lot. However there
> remains one problem. Current stamp file check also calculates the stamp of tasks
> depended on. If those stamps are newer or not exist, the check return False to
> indicate mismatched stamp.
> 
> In 'noexec' case, some 'noexec' tasks happen to have some dependent tasks
> skipped which thus don't generate stamp files. This makes the check always
> failed for those 'noexec' tasks and thus you always observe the Noexec messages.
> 
> I have a patch to fix that, and will send out soon. :-)

I've pushed what I think is the correct fix for this problem, let me
know how it looks.

Cheers,

Richard

Re: [PATCH 0/1] Fix weird rebuild issue even when sstate signature doesn't change

[Richard Purdie]

On Wed, 2010-12-15 at 09:10 -0700, Gary Thomas wrote:
> On 12/15/2010 02:12 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-12-14 at 21:40 +0800, Kevin Tian wrote:
> > I've merged this patch into master, good catch and hopefully this gets
> > sstate into a good working state.
> >
> > I've merged an updated version of Paul's sstate branch too.
> >
> > I'm hoping this makes sstate packages finally usable!
> 
> Mucho bettero (TM) :-)
> 
> I just tried this from master and at least on the same machine
> but different build paths, it performed much as hoped.  My initial
> build (step 1) took some 165 minutes, building the same target using
> the sstate cache from step 1 took only 22.  The only packages rebuilt
> during step 2 were the kernel and the image tasks (I tested this with
> my own image+kernel recipes, so it's OK if this differs a little from
> other's results).
> 
> Bottom line, it seems to be working much better now.
> 
> Note to Paul: I also still see lots of LD_PRELOAD messages like
>    ERROR: ld.so: object 'libpseudo.so' from LD_PRELOAD cannot be preloaded: ignored.
> but they did not seem to affect the result.

This error should be fixed with some changes that went in today.

> Note to Richard: I'm still seeing a ton of Noexec messages every time I rebuild
> a package in this tree.  I thought I understood you to say they should happen
> at most once?

Yes, I've pushed some changes which should help too.

Its taken longer that I'd have liked but we *are* getting there with
sstate and prebuilds! :)

Cheers,

Richard