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 1TIgP9-0006eN-QB for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Mon, 01 Oct 2012 15:51:28 +0200 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tim.rpsys.net (8.13.6/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q91DcRLx003175; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 14:38:27 +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 02349-08; Mon, 1 Oct 2012 14:38:23 +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 q91DcKa3003168 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 1 Oct 2012 14:38:21 +0100 Message-ID: <1349098703.15753.103.camel@ted> From: Richard Purdie To: Phil Blundell Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2012 14:38:23 +0100 In-Reply-To: <1349092206.32611.57.camel@phil-desktop> References: <1348501103.31293.51.camel@phil-desktop> <50607F4E.5040300@linux.intel.com> <1348503778.31293.52.camel@phil-desktop> <20120924192845.GE3295@jama.jama.net> <1349092206.32611.57.camel@phil-desktop> X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.3-0ubuntu6 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rpsys.net Cc: Martin Jansa , openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: work-shared not being correctly shared X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 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, 01 Oct 2012 13:51:28 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Mon, 2012-10-01 at 12:50 +0100, Phil Blundell wrote: > On Mon, 2012-09-24 at 21:28 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 05:22:57PM +0100, Phil Blundell wrote: > > > On Mon, 2012-09-24 at 08:42 -0700, Saul Wold wrote: > > > > Yes, I am seeing something similar with do_patch happening twice on the > > > > work-shared area, I talked with Richard a bit ago about it, and I am > > > > digging into the siginfo files, you can use bitbake-sigdiff to see what > > > > sigs are changed causing it unpack twice (or in my case patch twice). > > > > > > Ah, right, it seems to be rm_old_work that's causing the problem. I'll > > > disable that for now and figure out how to fix it later. > > > > That was already discussed few weeks ago, you should be able to find it > > in archive. > > I found this thread: > > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/2012-July/026185.html > > but there didn't appear to be any clear conclusion about what the right > fix for the problem was. Does anybody have any further insight into > that? The issue is that rm_old_work references PN in its task definition. gcc's shared work directory assumes it can get the same sstate checksums for fetch/unpack/patch which is broken by: addtask rm_old_works before do_unpack The trick would seem to be to change do_unpack for do_configure which is how others worked around it. Not a perfect fix but equally not annoying enough to lose lots of sleep over. Cheers, Richard