Re: Merging problems

Bruce Ashfield
2014-12-19T13:14:01Z

On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 8:07 AM, Bruce Ashfield
<bruce.ashfield@windriver.com> wrote:
> On 2014-12-19, 7:41 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 2014-12-19 at 10:28 +0000, Richard Purdie wrote:
>>>
>>> I want to give people a headsup that we're having problems merging
>>> changes at the moment. We've been doing our best but the number of
>>> things building up which are causing issues is overwheling our ability
>>> to fix and stablise the build. It wasn't helped that I took a long
>>> weekend's vacation last weekend. There are changes being made or tested
>>> to the autobuilder which also isn't helping.
>>>
>>> The kernel series has several issues:
>>>
>>> * a random failure in do_kernel_configme [i]
>>
>>
>> I think I have a handle on this. If you look at the autobuilder failure
>> it says:
>
>
> do you have a link to the actual failure ?

Aw crap. I see it in your original email now. I'll have a look.

Bruce

>
>>
>> | [INFO] Configuring target/machine combo: "standard/qemuppc"
>> | [INFO] collecting configs in patches/meta-series
>>
>> and what concerns me is "patches/meta-series". I my local builds it
>> says .meta/meta-series. Poking around kern-tools I see:
>>
>> """
>> # determine the meta directory name. The meta directory is at the top
>> level
>> # of the repository, and is untracked.
>> meta_dir_options=`git ls-files -o --directory`
>> for m in $meta_dir_options; do
>> if [ -d "$m" ]; then
>> meta_dir=`echo $m | sed 's%/%%'`
>> fi
>> done
>>
>> if [ -z "$meta_dir" ]; then
>> meta_dir=".meta"
>> fi
>> """
>>
>> which means that if a "patches" directory exists it will use it since
>> the command looks for untracked directories. I also noticed that some
>> places define the default as ".meta", some as "meta" and they look a bit
>> confused but that is probably a separate issue.
>
>
> They are consistent .. both are supported, we migrated from 'meta' to
> .meta some time ago, but there are old trees that still have to build.
>
>>
>> The question is then how does a "patches" directory end up in the kernel
>> source. I was able to create one with the commands:
>>
>> MACHINE=qemuppc bitbake linux-yocto perf -c clean
>> MACHINE=qemuppc bitbake linux-yocto -c patch
>> MACHINE=qemuppc bitbake perf -c unpack
>> MACHINE=qemuppc bitbake linux-yocto -c kernel_configme
>>
>> which doesn't fail like the autobuilder but does put the metadata into
>> the wrong place with the wrong data (into patches). I'm therefore
>> guessing this is a big horrible race.
>>
>> Why does perf -c unpack create a patches directory? base.bbclass has:
>>
>> do_unpack[cleandirs] = "${S}/patches"
>>
>> The fix is therefore probably to not run the fetch/unpack/patch tasks in
>> kernelsrc.bbclass.
>
>
> Very likely. I'll have a look. I noticed about 6 months ago that a patches
> directory was being created .. even when it was never going to be used.
> I took steps to remove it before the linux-yocto builds continued, but
> apparently it is sneaking back in through other means :)
>
> Bruce
>
>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Richard
>>
>>
>
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core

--
"Thou shalt not follow the NULL pointer, for chaos and madness await
thee at its end"