From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [134.134.136.65]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF308780AA for ; Mon, 29 May 2017 16:13:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21]) by orsmga103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 29 May 2017 09:13:47 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.38,415,1491289200"; d="asc'?scan'208";a="93154049" Received: from unknown (HELO [10.219.128.117]) ([10.219.128.117]) by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 29 May 2017 09:13:46 -0700 To: Patrick Ohly , openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org References: From: =?UTF-8?B?QW7DrWJhbCBMaW3Ds24=?= Message-ID: <592C48BD.5020107@linux.intel.com> Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 11:13:49 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] yocto-compat-layer.py: apply test_signatures to all layers X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 May 2017 16:13:48 -0000 X-Groupsio-MsgNum: 97886 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="NT4DBsPxTBiLIFr4LpWFI1ouh4VeDO4eU" --NT4DBsPxTBiLIFr4LpWFI1ouh4VeDO4eU Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 05/29/2017 10:32 AM, Patrick Ohly wrote: > Software layers were previously allowed to change signatures, but > that's not desired for those layers either. The rule that a layer > which is "Yocto Compatible 2.0" must not change signatures unless > explicitly requested holds for all kinds of layers. If i understand correctly now a software layer can't change a signature but how do we handle this?, currently if a software layer is added and has bbappends or newer version of a recipe the signature will change. May be we need to postpone this validation removal until we have a manner to avoid a software layer automatically change the signatures. Cheers, Anibal >=20 > Signed-off-by: Patrick Ohly > --- > scripts/lib/compatlayer/cases/common.py | 4 ---- > 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-) >=20 > diff --git a/scripts/lib/compatlayer/cases/common.py b/scripts/lib/comp= atlayer/cases/common.py > index 2dfcbb1..fe4936e 100644 > --- a/scripts/lib/compatlayer/cases/common.py > +++ b/scripts/lib/compatlayer/cases/common.py > @@ -27,10 +27,6 @@ class CommonCompatLayer(OECompatLayerTestCase): > 'bitbake -e') > =20 > def test_signatures(self): > - if self.tc.layer['type'] =3D=3D LayerType.SOFTWARE: > - raise unittest.SkipTest("Layer %s isn't BSP or DISTRO one.= " \ > - % self.tc.layer['name']) > - > # task -> (old signature, new signature) > sig_diff =3D {} > curr_sigs, _ =3D get_signatures(self.td['builddir'], failsafe=3D= True) >=20 --NT4DBsPxTBiLIFr4LpWFI1ouh4VeDO4eU Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJZLEi/AAoJEGJqcE9h3glgd9oP/3FHQo59alFWv+U9QuLv0yhg FYc9j+dG/7KBL3gfQkfG8PX3zZQKS7ZTRnsUzfOBg5+Hn4EsyTDwZk6+nF1zpLvk t1+0jxqfdA8lzDYc5l3sF7DvMzDRmuXPDAq/uJqHF047V0QqFUTNz3Qg3t60fAvX GlRJMroBAGG2GH2BzKGJpI8w50b+Uhrai6czPjj6UDENIx8/S6Sc2BcLnFKriB0e 8tLN8SsR5lI9S8TtKlrzSrEcNR0uvPe5eay8UluwgpESDNkZ/stH4l7IRDYi094x EgCtoK3zFwdQPyKn7oAi35PQBagV6O2u997n/2CF481tcBB1W3EXGp0pra96cOKB Nuu07iDppM995E4W93zJa1xvb8PNIcb4qk7qU82QuG1CC02d+dismzXat8A0BrZ9 xOQbj/89vnOubODotygnp7nsKwgUU7d5lbPYQ5Ve3+1iLTaIxmaWSWYs+h4jYj8I VlfjmRjEWLaKI5rQFB8lYNFLOba1+RXXIhVYkTerNxvuSk+LASJ1RvVYAIXgU1AX 2yRK3aNLaZ7x20Cip/aHxCvhtQ9FXSlP7KY2gH9pt0ZmoXw4FPzeZyPVjhT0+yes OnOGE6Dt5SWf0CZAvQyw0EBf8wG4qfuYhpKU4BTtUr0cnVc+QHmUzB0Zg+dLA4p5 45KYGyEbyGF3ruvN6SeB =3QkM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --NT4DBsPxTBiLIFr4LpWFI1ouh4VeDO4eU--