[PATCH] os-release: Exclude DATETIME from sstate signature

[PATCH] os-release: Exclude DATETIME from sstate signature

[Richard Purdie]

I'm torn over this, I can see someone wanting this to vary in each
build. What pushed me to believe its incorrect in its current form
is that it changes for every MACHINE build, making a complete mess
if you try and generate package feeds using it.

The alternative would be to give up on allarch in this case and make
it MACHINE specific which at least would then be more consistent when
the package makes it to a package feed. If someone wants to do that,
the can propose another patch but this change at least make package
feed usage 'sane' again and avoids the perpetual rebuilds.

Incidentally, its worth noting that changes in source metadata revision
used for the build and included in this recipe would still trigger
rebuilds which is likely the common use case people actually care about.

Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>

diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/os-release/os-release.bb b/meta/recipes-core/os-release/os-release.bb
index 87fea6f..10a4570 100644
--- a/meta/recipes-core/os-release/os-release.bb
+++ b/meta/recipes-core/os-release/os-release.bb
@@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ VERSION = "${DISTRO_VERSION}${@' (%s)' % DISTRO_CODENAME if 'DISTRO_CODENAME' in
 VERSION_ID = "${DISTRO_VERSION}"
 PRETTY_NAME = "${DISTRO_NAME} ${VERSION}"
 BUILD_ID ?= "${DATETIME}"
+BUILD_ID[vardepsexclude] = "DATETIME"
 
 python do_compile () {
     with open(d.expand('${B}/os-release'), 'w') as f:

Re: [PATCH] os-release: Exclude DATETIME from sstate signature

[Joshua Lock]

On 25/08/15 17:58, Richard Purdie wrote:
> I'm torn over this, I can see someone wanting this to vary in each
> build. What pushed me to believe its incorrect in its current form
> is that it changes for every MACHINE build, making a complete mess
> if you try and generate package feeds using it.

It's also worth pointing out that the BUILD_ID isn't included in the 
generated os-release file unless you add BUILD_ID to OS_RELEASE_FIELDS.

I'm personally not certain whether DATETIME makes sense as BUILD_ID a 
multi-MACHINE distro anyway.

Cheers,

Joshua

> The alternative would be to give up on allarch in this case and make
> it MACHINE specific which at least would then be more consistent when
> the package makes it to a package feed. If someone wants to do that,
> the can propose another patch but this change at least make package
> feed usage 'sane' again and avoids the perpetual rebuilds.
>
> Incidentally, its worth noting that changes in source metadata revision
> used for the build and included in this recipe would still trigger
> rebuilds which is likely the common use case people actually care about.
>
> Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
>
> diff --git a/meta/recipes-core/os-release/os-release.bb b/meta/recipes-core/os-release/os-release.bb
> index 87fea6f..10a4570 100644
> --- a/meta/recipes-core/os-release/os-release.bb
> +++ b/meta/recipes-core/os-release/os-release.bb
> @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ VERSION = "${DISTRO_VERSION}${@' (%s)' % DISTRO_CODENAME if 'DISTRO_CODENAME' in
>   VERSION_ID = "${DISTRO_VERSION}"
>   PRETTY_NAME = "${DISTRO_NAME} ${VERSION}"
>   BUILD_ID ?= "${DATETIME}"
> +BUILD_ID[vardepsexclude] = "DATETIME"
>
>   python do_compile () {
>       with open(d.expand('${B}/os-release'), 'w') as f:
>
>

Re: [PATCH] os-release: Exclude DATETIME from sstate signature

[Paul Eggleton]

On Wednesday 26 August 2015 09:41:17 Joshua Lock wrote:
> On 25/08/15 17:58, Richard Purdie wrote:
> > I'm torn over this, I can see someone wanting this to vary in each
> > build. What pushed me to believe its incorrect in its current form
> > is that it changes for every MACHINE build, making a complete mess
> > if you try and generate package feeds using it.
> 
> It's also worth pointing out that the BUILD_ID isn't included in the
> generated os-release file unless you add BUILD_ID to OS_RELEASE_FIELDS.
> 
> I'm personally not certain whether DATETIME makes sense as BUILD_ID a
> multi-MACHINE distro anyway.

Indeed, since you have to invoke bitbake multiple times, under those 
circumstances you probably ought to be pre-calculating the BUILD_ID and 
passing it into the build.

Cheers,
Paul

-- 

Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre