On Fri, 2011-10-14 at 13:49 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote: > Op 14 okt. 2011, om 13:42 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven: > > > On Fri, 2011-10-14 at 12:47 +0200, Anders Darander wrote: > >> * Anders Darander <and...@chargestorm.se> [111014 09:55]: > >>> In our local tree, I've circumvented this race by applying a patch like > >>> [3]. (Well, we could likely have put the lock in do_make_scripts() > >>> instead of module_do_compile(), as we have done currently). Obviously, > >>> I'm not proposing to apply this patch, as it depends on lockfile from > >>> the procmail-package (host-package). > >> > >> Just to confirm, it seems (after a very few tests) that it indeed is > >> enough to guard the do_make_scripts() with the lock. > >> > >> However, the question on how to make the real solution remains... > > > > I've not tested this but it might give you enough info to test > > something: > > > > (Basic idea is to promote that function to a task, then apply a lock to > > it). > > Or taking a step back, deleting the scripts to save 0.002 kilobytes in > sysroot was not a good idea. Shall we just stop deleting them and go > back to the old way which actually worked?
It doesn't work, the scripts are compiled binaries and switching between 32 and 64 bit systems with sstate was a disaster. Either we need to split the scripts off and mark them as "native" architecture or rebuild them, we chose the latter for good reason. Cheers, Richard _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
