Re: [OE-core][PATCH v6 00/12] Add SPDX 3.0 support

Richard Purdie
2024-07-15T21:07:43Z

On Mon, 2024-07-15 at 14:40 -0600, Joshua Watt wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 13, 2024 at 12:44 AM Richard Purdie
> <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 2024-07-12 at 09:58 -0600, Joshua Watt via
> > lists.openembedded.org wrote:
> > > This patch series add support for SPDX 3.0 and sets it as the
> > > default.
> > > Currently it is not possible to have SPDX 2.2 and SPDX 3.0
> > > enabled at
> > > the same time
> > >
> > > v2: Added tests and addressed feedback
> > > v3: Fixed several oe-selftest and build failures
> > > v4: Fixed silly typo mistake in staging.bbclass
> > > v5: Reworked to make SPDX 3 output reproducible by default.
> > > Variables
> > >     that introduce non-reproducible output are documented as
> > > such.
> > > v6: Many changes:
> > >   * Fixed bug where building baremetal images would break SPDX
> > > 2.2
> > >   * Most SPDX code is now in python library files instead of
> > > tasks
> > >   * Removed dependency on pacakge_write_* tasks
> > >   * Fixed sstate selftest cases to account for SPDX 3.0 task
> > > names
> >
> > This had a lot of failures in testing I'm afraid:
> >
> > https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/typhoon/#/builders/83/builds/7134
>
> This appears to be caused because the SPDX tasks are not running for
> some recipes (e.g. automake). It looks like this like:
>
>   do_create_rootfs_spdx[recrdeptask] += "do_create_spdx
> do_create_package_spdx"
>
> is not actually strong enough to make sure the SPDX tasks for
> automake
> run for e.g. core-image-sato-sdk, but I don't know why. I'll keep
> looking, but if anyone happens to know off the top of their head let
> me know

Can you be specific about which tasks you mean when you say "make sure
the SPDX tasks for automake run"? Do you mean do_create_spdx,
do_create_package_spdx or a different one?

Cheers,

Richard