Re: [OE-core] [PATCH v3] rust: Avoid passing host-specific information to crates Strict Version Hash

[Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Fri, 2026-08-28 at 09:46 -0600, Alejandro Hernandez wrote:
> 
> On 8/27/2026 1:53 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> > On Wed, 2026-08-26 at 21:47 +0100, Richard Purdie via
> > lists.openembedded.org wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2026-08-26 at 14:08 -0600, Alejandro Hernandez wrote:
> > > > On 8/26/2026 1:17 PM, Richard Purdie via lists.openembedded.org
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 2026-08-26 at 11:25 -0700, Dora, Sunil Kumar via
> > > > > lists.openembedded.org wrote:
> > > > > > Hi Alejandro,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Thanks for chasing this one down. Small notes on v3:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > The commit is tagged [YOCTO #15554], but that bug is
> > > > > > "reproducibility
> > > > > > failures with 'rustdoc' on rust 1.75" (path-length
> > > > > > dependent),
> > > > > > RESOLVED FIXED
> > > > > > since 2024-08-01 via codegen-units=1 / lto=off.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > What you describe here - artifacts differing by build host
> > > > > > arch,
> > > > > > causing
> > > > > > cross-architecture sstate matches - looks like:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >     [YOCTO #16376] AB-INT: build system architecture
> > > > > > reproducibility issue
> > > > > >     https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16376
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > which is still open. Could you retag it in v4, unless you
> > > > > > had a
> > > > > > reason to
> > > > > > point at 15554 that I'm missing?
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > One pointer that may or may not be relevant: the 1.97.1
> > > > > > upgrade
> > > > > > (65271a5d3b)
> > > > > > carries an LLVM backport:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >     0043-LoopUnroll-Iterate-exit-fold-candidates-in-
> > > > > > determini.patch
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > added for a repro issue seen with rust 1.97.0. I haven't
> > > > > > looked
> > > > > > at whether it
> > > > > > interacts with the SVH path at all - just flagging it in
> > > > > > case
> > > > > > it's useful context.
> > > > Hey Richard,
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Sorry for the incorrect tag.
> > > No problem, that is at least easily fixed!
> > > 
> > > > I'll look into these failures as well and send a v4
> > > Thanks! I appreciate the work on this as it should improve things
> > > a
> > > lot.
> > > 
> > > > > I put v3 in for testing on the autobuilder and it looks
> > > > > promising,
> > > > > there are some rust test suite failures though:
> > > > > 
> > > > > https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/valkyrie/#/builders/28/builds/4472
> > > > > https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/valkyrie/#/builders/66/builds/4577
> > > > > 
> > > > > and probably more to follow. We may need to exclude those
> > > > > tests?
> > > > > 
> > > > > I also triggered the reproducibility test targets:
> > > > > 
> > > > > https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/valkyrie/#/builders/121/builds/3
> > > > > https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/valkyrie/#/builders/119/builds/3
> > > > > https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/valkyrie/#/builders/120/builds/3
> > > > > 
> > > > > those builds are ongoing.
> > > One of these completed:
> > > 
> > > https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/valkyrie/#/builders/120/builds/3
> > > 
> > > which leads to:
> > > 
> > > https://valkyrie.yocto.io/pub/repro-fail/oe-reproducible-20260826-plagtpam/packages/diff-html/
> > > 
> > > There looks to be a locale issue, some python config tweaks,
> > > curl-
> > > config binconfig needing a tweak and a smaller rust issue left.
> > > 
> > > Definitely progress, much fewer recipes showing issues and fewer
> > > binary
> > > ones and more text ones left...
> > Sadly the other two test runs looked less promising:
> > 
> > https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/valkyrie/#/builders/119/builds/3
> > https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/valkyrie/#/builders/121/builds/3
> > 
> > both of which have a lot of rust related looking differences :/
> 
> Apologies, I got a bit confused, is the ask to send a v4 with the 
> correct tag and then look at other reproducibility issues?.
> 
> or are these reproducibility issues related to the patch and need to
> be addressed before sending a v4?

I'm probably a bit confused too. There are still reproducibility issues
in there that look rust related and I can't really tell if those are
additional issues or whether the original fix isn't working. I suspect
I need your help to work that out...

Cheers,

Richard