Re: SRCPV migration

[Koen Kooi <k.kooi@student.utwente.nl>]

On 16-11-09 12:51, Martin Jansa wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 11:59:10AM +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
>> On 16-11-09 11:49, Richard Purdie wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2009-11-16 at 11:37 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
>>>> So basically every recipe that is using SRCPV in PV or PR is unsuitable
>>>> to be put in online feeds. That should be enough to stop the SRCPV merge
>>>> into .dev.
>>>
>>> How is this different to the current situation though?
>>
>> In the current situation (actually, last weeks situation) SRCPV was
>> never used.
>>
>>> If SRCREV is locked down you will get 1 as the local build revision back
>>> and it will not change and will be the same for everyone.
>>
>>> If its not locked down, all bets are off but they always have been - no
>>> change.
>>
>> Ah, that was the bit of info I was missing. But if SRCREV is locked
>> down (as it should!) what's the point of putting SRCPV in PV or PR?
>> It seems to make things worse if you update a locked SRCREV, since
>> SRCPV will remain '1'.
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> Koen
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm not sure if this is 100% right but it behaves like this here:
>
> with AUTOREV used

Which angstrom tries to avoid at great lenghts and any OE recipe fetched 
from an scm will by default and policy have a locked down rev available.
A user (or distro) has to explicitly enable AUTOREV for recipes.

> as SRCREV you get ${SRCREV} in format
> gitrNNNN+hash
> where NNNN is localcount incremented on buildhost every time you build
> that recipe AND hash is changed
> if you have fixed SRCREV then without SRCPV you get just gitrHash which
> can be<  gitrNNNN+hash or>  gitrNNNN+hash depending on actual hash value.
> That's why you cannot switch between SRCREV and SRCPV without PE bump.

I'm extremely allergic to PE bumps, because it means we screwed up big time.

> If there is SRCPV in PV and you're using fixed SRCREV than you don't
> need to bump PR in cases like this
> ./xorg-proto/calibrateproto_git.bb:PV = "0.0+${PR}+gitr${SRCPV}"
> because +gitr${SRCPV} will create non-decreasing sequence as localcount
> will be incremented every time you bump fixed SRCREV for that recipe AND
> build it.

So, how do I say

PREFERRED_VERSION_calibrateproto = 0.0+r1+gitr483843874931943189393 # 
(4838... is what's in sane-srcrevs.inc)

with SRCPV? It seems I would loose the ability to do that 'globally' 
since SRCPV is tied to a buildhost.

> You're right that there can be inconsistency between builders if one ie
> you're changing fixed srcrev every day and rebuild it on that buildhost
> and othere buildhost is rebuilding that package once a month.
>
> If all your builders are building all your targets every day and you're
> not changing fixed SRCREV more then once a day, you need to sync
> bb_persist_data.sqlite3 only for new builder or after some failures
> (which I know is quite error-prone :().

So SRCPV makes things worse than the current situation.

> This inconsistency can be fixed imho only by sharing
> tmpdir-dev-shr/cache/om-gta02/bb_persist_data.sqlite3 between hosts
> (better using some online database access for getting localcounts)
>
> sqlite3 ../tmpdir-dev-shr/cache/om-gta02/bb_persist_data.sqlite3
> "select * from BB_URI_LOCALCOUNT where key like '%kernel.git-linux-openmoko-shr-drm-devel_count';"
> git:git.openmoko.org.git.kernel.git-linux-openmoko-shr-drm-devel_count|5

So it seems that using SRCPV in PV and PR shouldn't be allowed till 
there is *good* way to share the 'localcount' to all builders.

regards,

Koen