From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from 93-97-173-237.zone5.bethere.co.uk ([93.97.173.237] helo=tim.rpsys.net) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QrXlH-0002MV-VH for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 18:05:36 +0200 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tim.rpsys.net (8.13.6/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p7BG15xe032164 for ; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 17:01:05 +0100 Received: from tim.rpsys.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (tim.rpsys.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 31578-07 for ; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 17:01:01 +0100 (BST) Received: from [192.168.3.10] ([192.168.3.10]) (authenticated bits=0) by tim.rpsys.net (8.13.6/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p7BG10DM032158 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 11 Aug 2011 17:01:00 +0100 From: Richard Purdie To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer In-Reply-To: <0C67B7D5-11F2-45F4-AD8F-F43F508CD784@kernel.crashing.org> References: <0C67B7D5-11F2-45F4-AD8F-F43F508CD784@kernel.crashing.org> Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 17:00:22 +0100 Message-ID: <1313078422.14274.442.camel@rex> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.2 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rpsys.net Subject: Re: sscache signature? X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 16:05:36 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 12:51 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote: > the yocto wiki references mentions a bitbake-diffsigs > > https://wiki.yoctoproject.org/wiki/Enable_sstate_cache > > but not seeing that. How can one compare signature or try and figure > out why a cache item isn't being reused between cfgs. What I've been referring to is a process something along the lines of: $ bitbake bash -e | grep BASEHASH | sort > hashbefore $ vi ../scripts/oe-buildenv-internal [Add SOCKS5_USER and SOCKS5_DOMAIN to BB_ENV_EXTRAWHITE] $ export SOCKS5_USER=bar $ cd ..; source oe-init-build-env b2 $ bitbake bash -e | grep BASEHASH | sort > hashafter $ diff -u hashbefore hashafter [no differences] $ vi conf/local.conf [ Add "export SOCKS5_USER" to file ] $ bitbake bash -e | grep BASEHASH | sort > hashafter2 $ diff -u hashbefore hashafter2 [ Find hashes now changed (which is bad and what we need to avoid ] $ vi ./meta/conf/bitbake.conf [ Add SOCKS5_USER to BB_HASHBASE_WHIETLIST ] $ bitbake bash -e | grep BASEHASH | sort > hashafter3 $ diff -u hashbefore hashafter2 [no differences again - good] which proves the addition of the variable didn't result in changes sstate checksums. The bitbake-diffsigs command can be used to find out what caused changes but in this case we have a pretty good idea so I didn't use it. As mentioned on irc, adding it to BB_ENV_EXTRAWHITE isn't an issue but since its not exported into any of bitbake's execution environment, I'm at a loss to understand how this helps you. If you do also export the value to include it in bitbake's execution environment it does change the hash which is what I worried about and it needs excluding as documented above. Some further investigation is needed to figure out how BB_ENV_EXTRAWHITE is enough as it shouldn't be. Cheers, Richard