* Architecture mismatch QA check not fatal?
@ 2011-06-20 7:41 Koen Kooi
2011-06-20 13:23 ` Mark Hatle
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Koen Kooi @ 2011-06-20 7:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer
Hi,
I was building qt this weekend and I noticed this one:
WARNING: QA Issue: Architecture did not match (40 to 62) on /work/armv7a-angstrom-linux-gnueabi/qt4-embedded-4.7.3-r26.1/packages-split/qt4-embedded-tools/usr/bin/moc
WARNING: QA Issue: Architecture did not match (40 to 62) on /work/armv7a-angstrom-linux-gnueabi/qt4-embedded-4.7.3-r26.1/packages-split/qt4-embedded-tools/usr/bin/uic
WARNING: QA Issue: Architecture did not match (40 to 62) on /work/armv7a-angstrom-linux-gnueabi/qt4-embedded-4.7.3-r26.1/packages-split/qt4-embedded-tools/usr/bin/rcc
Shouldn't that be a fatal error, shipping x86 binaries in arm packages?
regards,
Koen
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Architecture mismatch QA check not fatal?
2011-06-20 7:41 Architecture mismatch QA check not fatal? Koen Kooi
@ 2011-06-20 13:23 ` Mark Hatle
2011-06-20 13:29 ` Phil Blundell
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Mark Hatle @ 2011-06-20 13:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: openembedded-core
On 6/20/11 2:41 AM, Koen Kooi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was building qt this weekend and I noticed this one:
>
> WARNING: QA Issue: Architecture did not match (40 to 62) on /work/armv7a-angstrom-linux-gnueabi/qt4-embedded-4.7.3-r26.1/packages-split/qt4-embedded-tools/usr/bin/moc
> WARNING: QA Issue: Architecture did not match (40 to 62) on /work/armv7a-angstrom-linux-gnueabi/qt4-embedded-4.7.3-r26.1/packages-split/qt4-embedded-tools/usr/bin/uic
> WARNING: QA Issue: Architecture did not match (40 to 62) on /work/armv7a-angstrom-linux-gnueabi/qt4-embedded-4.7.3-r26.1/packages-split/qt4-embedded-tools/usr/bin/rcc
>
> Shouldn't that be a fatal error, shipping x86 binaries in arm packages?
There are a couple of very minor use cases where this may be necessary. So I'm
wondering if we can put in an override mechanism that tells the system to make
the QA a warning instead of an error for select packages. Otherwise, yes.. this
should be an error.
(The minor cases are primarily firmware loaded into off-board cards in PCI
chasis and such.. occasionally these firmware are ELF and of an architecture not
the same as the host.. it's rare, but I have seen it before.)
--Mark
> regards,
>
> Koen
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Architecture mismatch QA check not fatal?
2011-06-20 13:23 ` Mark Hatle
@ 2011-06-20 13:29 ` Phil Blundell
2011-06-20 13:31 ` Koen Kooi
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Phil Blundell @ 2011-06-20 13:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer
On Mon, 2011-06-20 at 08:23 -0500, Mark Hatle wrote:
> (The minor cases are primarily firmware loaded into off-board cards in PCI
> chasis and such.. occasionally these firmware are ELF and of an architecture not
> the same as the host.. it's rare, but I have seen it before.)
Shouldn't those firmware images just go in a separate package?
p.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Architecture mismatch QA check not fatal?
2011-06-20 13:29 ` Phil Blundell
@ 2011-06-20 13:31 ` Koen Kooi
2011-06-20 13:55 ` Mark Hatle
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Koen Kooi @ 2011-06-20 13:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer
Op 20 jun 2011, om 15:29 heeft Phil Blundell het volgende geschreven:
> On Mon, 2011-06-20 at 08:23 -0500, Mark Hatle wrote:
>> (The minor cases are primarily firmware loaded into off-board cards in PCI
>> chasis and such.. occasionally these firmware are ELF and of an architecture not
>> the same as the host.. it's rare, but I have seen it before.)
>
> Shouldn't those firmware images just go in a separate package?
If we do that we can use INSANE_SKIP_firmwarepackage = True, which seems like a good solution.
regards,
Koen
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Architecture mismatch QA check not fatal?
2011-06-20 13:31 ` Koen Kooi
@ 2011-06-20 13:55 ` Mark Hatle
2011-06-20 14:25 ` Koen Kooi
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Mark Hatle @ 2011-06-20 13:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: openembedded-core
On 6/20/11 8:31 AM, Koen Kooi wrote:
>
> Op 20 jun 2011, om 15:29 heeft Phil Blundell het volgende geschreven:
>
>> On Mon, 2011-06-20 at 08:23 -0500, Mark Hatle wrote:
>>> (The minor cases are primarily firmware loaded into off-board cards in PCI
>>> chasis and such.. occasionally these firmware are ELF and of an architecture not
>>> the same as the host.. it's rare, but I have seen it before.)
>>
>> Shouldn't those firmware images just go in a separate package?
Depends on how the system is configured.. Often I see them packaged with the
firmware loader -- which is the proper arch, etc..
> If we do that we can use INSANE_SKIP_firmwarepackage = True, which seems like a good solution.
Ya, as long as we can skip -- or change it to a warning instead of an error.. I
think we're good. Like I said, this is rare and unlikely to be an issue in
anything in oe-core, meta-oe or even the distributions based on oe-core.. but I
have seen it in customer production environments before.
--Mark
> regards,
>
> Koen
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: Architecture mismatch QA check not fatal?
2011-06-20 13:55 ` Mark Hatle
@ 2011-06-20 14:25 ` Koen Kooi
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Koen Kooi @ 2011-06-20 14:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer
Op 20 jun 2011, om 15:55 heeft Mark Hatle het volgende geschreven:
> On 6/20/11 8:31 AM, Koen Kooi wrote:
>>
>> Op 20 jun 2011, om 15:29 heeft Phil Blundell het volgende geschreven:
>>
>>> On Mon, 2011-06-20 at 08:23 -0500, Mark Hatle wrote:
>>>> (The minor cases are primarily firmware loaded into off-board cards in PCI
>>>> chasis and such.. occasionally these firmware are ELF and of an architecture not
>>>> the same as the host.. it's rare, but I have seen it before.)
>>>
>>> Shouldn't those firmware images just go in a separate package?
>
> Depends on how the system is configured.. Often I see them packaged with the
> firmware loader -- which is the proper arch, etc..
>
>> If we do that we can use INSANE_SKIP_firmwarepackage = True, which seems like a good solution.
>
> Ya, as long as we can skip -- or change it to a warning instead of an error.. I
> think we're good. Like I said, this is rare and unlikely to be an issue in
> anything in oe-core, meta-oe or even the distributions based on oe-core.. but I
> have seen it in customer production environments before.
We have exactly 1 xorg driver in oe .dev that triggers it :)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-06-20 14:28 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2011-06-20 7:41 Architecture mismatch QA check not fatal? Koen Kooi
2011-06-20 13:23 ` Mark Hatle
2011-06-20 13:29 ` Phil Blundell
2011-06-20 13:31 ` Koen Kooi
2011-06-20 13:55 ` Mark Hatle
2011-06-20 14:25 ` Koen Kooi
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.