From: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Martin Jansa <martin.jansa@gmail.com>
Cc: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
Subject: Re: is sstate-cache really deterministic together with shlibs providers?
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2013 21:11:40 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1370635900.6864.76.camel@ted> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130607192007.GL22710@jama>
On Fri, 2013-06-07 at 21:20 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote:
> Imagine this process
>
> foo.bb DEPENDS on libabc.bb to provide libabc.1.so
>
> evil recipe bar.bb installs some binary crap in /opt/crap and because it's
> picky about libabc version it bundles own compy of libabc.so.1 and
> installs it to /opt/crap/lib/libabc.so.1
>
> At the time of first build nobody notices libabc.1.so and foo, bar and
> libabc are happily populated to sysroot.
>
> foo.bb is rebuilt because of some unrelated change, but this times it
> uses bar as shlibs provider for libabc.so.1
>
> foo does not work in runtime, because it cannot find libabc.so.1 hidden
> in /opt/crap/lib.
>
> bar.bb is "fixed" by adding EXCLUDE_FROM_SHLIBS to prevent further
> polluting of shlibs providers, but damage is already done.
>
> foo doesn't have any dependency on bar (DEPENDS/RDEPENDS) because bar.bb
> is just unrelated binary crap which just happens to bundle libabc.so.1
> too (so foo checksum does not include bar checksum)
>
> Now the tricky part:
> 1) fixing local build is easy
> bitbake -c cleansstate `grep ' bar' buildhistory/images/machine/eglibc/image-with-foo/depends.dot | sed 's/ -> .*//g' | xargs`
>
> but sstate checksums are identical with bar or libabc in package
> "Depends:" field, so how to cleanup SSTATE_MIRROR and sstate archives
> already distributed to every local builder?
>
> I could bump PR in libabc, but with PR bumps and PRINC going away I
> really need to know how to solve such issues in future. Should we fix
> do_package to filter shlibs providers to include only recipes which
> are in (R)DEPENDS/RRECOMMENDS/RSUGGESTS?
PR bumps can still happen for corner cases like this, the intent is just
to rely on the system for the 99.9% of cases which it does cover much
more accurately than a human.
We should perhaps limit shlibs to the default linker search paths?
Wouldn't there be a warning if two things provide the same shlibs or
does that assume the shlibs versioning sorts itself out?
Cheers,
Richard
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-06-07 20:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-06-07 19:20 is sstate-cache really deterministic together with shlibs providers? Martin Jansa
2013-06-07 20:11 ` Richard Purdie [this message]
2013-06-07 20:14 ` Phil Blundell
2013-06-07 20:43 ` Martin Jansa
2013-06-08 13:23 ` Phil Blundell
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1370635900.6864.76.camel@ted \
--to=richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=martin.jansa@gmail.com \
--cc=openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox