mtools bitbake failure

mtools bitbake failure

[Mike Jones]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1217 bytes --]

I want to document a problem with mtools to see if this can be fixed or put on a bug list.

The failure occurs when:

- using meta-phosphor and meta-raspberrypi
- using the default scripts/install-buildtools

When "wic create” is run mtools commands will fail with error “Error converting to codepage 850"

The cause is iconv does not support CP850.

A solution is to use a newer version of the build tools, say 3.2.3, like this:

scripts/install-buildtools --without-extended-buildtools \
          --base-url http://downloads.yoctoproject.org/releases/yocto <http://downloads.yoctoproject.org/releases/yocto> \
          --release yocto-3.2.3 \
          --installer-version 3.2.3

However, the install-buildtools script will fail for two reasons:

- It looks for file extension sha256 instead of sha256sum
- The regular expression looks for two spaces like this \s\s and the file only has one space

A quick look at poky 3.3 which is near in time to the iconv fixes, upon inspection, fix both of these problems.

So if openbmc moved to poky 3.3, it would solve this problem.

I also noticed that the regex uses \s+, so it should not break using older build tools based on md5sum.


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2709 bytes --]

Re: mtools bitbake failure

[Patrick Williams]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 469 bytes --]

On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 03:30:24PM -0600, Mike Jones wrote:
> A solution is to use a newer version of the build tools, say 3.2.3, like this:
> So if openbmc moved to poky 3.3, it would solve this problem.

I'm slightly confused by this question.  We started using the 3.3 branch
of Yocto by at least ~Jan of this year.  We tend to track upstream's
master branch, which now is the pre-3.4 development.

What is it you'd be looking for?

-- 
Patrick Williams

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: mtools bitbake failure

[Mike]

Sent from my iPhone

> On May 11, 2021, at 3:41 PM, Patrick Williams <patrick@stwcx.xyz> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 03:30:24PM -0600, Mike Jones wrote:
>> A solution is to use a newer version of the build tools, say 3.2.3, like this:
>> So if openbmc moved to poky 3.3, it would solve this problem.
> 
> I'm slightly confused by this question.  We started using the 3.3 branch
> of Yocto by at least ~Jan of this year.  We tend to track upstream's
> master branch, which now is the pre-3.4 development.
> 
> What is it you'd be looking for?

Perhaps tags 2.8 and 2.9 are too old? Both had this problem, but I don’t know which version of poky they use. My description above worked for 2.8

> 
> -- 
> Patrick Williams

Re: mtools bitbake failure

[Patrick Williams]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 589 bytes --]

On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 03:55:42PM -0600, Mike wrote:
> Perhaps tags 2.8 and 2.9 are too old? Both had this problem, but I don’t know which version of poky they use. My description above worked for 2.8

Very few people work off tags and we do not have a committed support
structure for them.  We barely can get people to raise their hand and
say they compile for their machine when we go to release them...

Unless you have a good reason to work off a tag, I would strongly
encourage you to work off our master branch for all your development
efforts.

-- 
Patrick Williams

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: mtools bitbake failure

[Mike]

Sent from my iPhone

> On May 11, 2021, at 4:01 PM, Patrick Williams <patrick@stwcx.xyz> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 03:55:42PM -0600, Mike wrote:
>> Perhaps tags 2.8 and 2.9 are too old? Both had this problem, but I don’t know which version of poky they use. My description above worked for 2.8
> 
> Very few people work off tags and we do not have a committed support
> structure for them.  We barely can get people to raise their hand and
> say they compile for their machine when we go to release them...
> 
> Unless you have a good reason to work off a tag, I would strongly
> encourage you to work off our master branch for all your development
> efforts.

Ok, my assumption of stability does not hold. Lesson learned.

Mike

> 
> -- 
> Patrick Williams