Openembedded Core Discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Alex Franco <alejandro.franco@linux.intel.com>
To: Martin Jansa <martin.jansa@gmail.com>
Cc: Christopher Larson <clarson@kergoth.com>,
	Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer
	<openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix recursive mode -st on BUILDDIR setup
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2015 16:54:41 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <55E8C1A1.20106@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150903214304.GA2456@jama>

Yes, I agree and in fact the patch is just now shipping

Alex Franco

On 09/03/2015 04:43 PM, Martin Jansa wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 03:01:20PM -0500, Alex Franco wrote:
>> Hello Martin, so the error you are seeing is related to the chmodding
>> being done in sanity.bbclass, not the chmodding taking place in
>> oe-setup-builddir. I am adding a catch and a warning for that, as I
>> reproduce your setup so I can also reproduce the OSError.
> Thanks.
>
> My point was that even when such setup isn't safe from reasons other
> people mentioned, the sanity.bbclass shouldn't fail with OSError
> exception.
>
> And as the issue isn't fatal for the build (I was using setup like this
> for very long time and haven't noticed host-permissions-contamination
> from this yet), then I would prefer just bbwarn instead of bbfatal - in
> both cases is should show clear message what's wrong and what user
> should do about it instead of OSError and user having to read
> sanity.bbclass to see what and why failed.
>
> Regards,
>
>> Alex
>>
>> On 09/02/2015 07:57 PM, Martin Jansa wrote:
>>> Warning informing that chmod failed is better than fatal error
>>> preventing me to build anything in that setup with tmpfs.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 11:27 PM, Alex Franco
>>> <alejandro.franco@linux.intel.com
>>> <mailto:alejandro.franco@linux.intel.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>      Checking may be the better approach, as warning here would do
>>>      little more than what the current failure does (informing that
>>>      chmod failed)
>>>
>>>      Alex Franco
>>>
>>>
>>>      On 09/02/2015 01:25 PM, Martin Jansa wrote:
>>>
>>>          On Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 06:51:23PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
>>>
>>>              On Wed, 2015-09-02 at 11:36 -0500, Alex Franco wrote:
>>>
>>>                  Removing recursive option from chmod -st on BUILDDIR
>>>                  as it would
>>>                  take very long on existing build directories
>>>
>>>                  [YOCTO 7669]
>>>
>>>                  Signed-off-by: Alex Franco
>>>                  <alejandro.franco@linux.intel.com
>>>                  <mailto:alejandro.franco@linux.intel.com>>
>>>                  ---
>>>                    scripts/oe-setup-builddir | 2 +-
>>>                    1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>>                  diff --git a/scripts/oe-setup-builddir
>>>                  b/scripts/oe-setup-builddir
>>>                  index f5b7e4e..44c7dcc 100755
>>>                  --- a/scripts/oe-setup-builddir
>>>                  +++ b/scripts/oe-setup-builddir
>>>                  @@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ if [ -z "$BUILDDIR" ]; then
>>>                    fi
>>>                      mkdir -p "$BUILDDIR/conf"
>>>                  -chmod -R -st "$BUILDDIR"
>>>                  +chmod -st "$BUILDDIR"
>>>
>>>              I think you did this so that conf/ gets the right
>>>              permissions too.
>>>              Perhaps the best approach is:
>>>
>>>              +chmod -st "$BUILDDIR" $BUILDDIR/conf"
>>>
>>>          Can we add "|| bbwarn foo"
>>>
>>>          for cases when it doesn't work for whatever reason or check the
>>>          permissions of these 2 dirs before calling chmod?
>>>
>>>              ?
>>>
>>>              Cheers,
>>>
>>>              Richard
>>>
>>>              --
>>>              _______________________________________________
>>>              Openembedded-core mailing list
>>>              Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
>>>              <mailto:Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org>
>>>              http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
>>>
>>>
>>>



  reply	other threads:[~2015-09-03 21:54 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-09-02 16:36 [PATCH] Fix recursive mode -st on BUILDDIR setup Alex Franco
2015-09-02 17:51 ` Richard Purdie
2015-09-02 18:25   ` Martin Jansa
2015-09-02 21:27     ` Alex Franco
2015-09-03  0:57       ` Martin Jansa
2015-09-03 20:01         ` Alex Franco
2015-09-03 21:43           ` Martin Jansa
2015-09-03 21:54             ` Alex Franco [this message]
2015-09-02 21:47 ` Peter Seebach
2015-09-02 22:28   ` Alex Franco

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=55E8C1A1.20106@linux.intel.com \
    --to=alejandro.franco@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=clarson@kergoth.com \
    --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