On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 3:40 AM Richard Purdie <richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > On Tue, 2022-04-26 at 14:39 -0700, Andre McCurdy wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 1:56 PM Khem Raj <raj.k...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 1:51 PM Andre McCurdy <armccu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 12:46 PM Nicolas Dechesne > > > > <nicolas.deche...@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > This is a follow up patch of: > > > > > ad5829aa1f8a (sanity: Show a warning that make 4.2.1 is buggy on > > > > > non-ubuntu systems) > > > > > > > > > > Debian10 has the exact same version/sources for make as Ubuntu > > > > > (focal), e.g. https://packages.debian.org/source/buster/make-dfsg and > > > > > https://packages.ubuntu.com/source/focal/make-dfsg. > > > > > > > > > > As per the corresponding changelog, the patch mentioned in > > > > > ad5829aa1f8a, is included in both Debian and Ubuntu in make > > > > > 4.2.1-1.1. So it's safe to use make 4.2.1 in Debian10. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Nicolas Dechesne <nicolas.deche...@linaro.org> > > > > > --- > > > > > meta/classes/sanity.bbclass | 2 +- > > > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/meta/classes/sanity.bbclass b/meta/classes/sanity.bbclass > > > > > index c385d92e8b..c72a7b3ed3 100644 > > > > > --- a/meta/classes/sanity.bbclass > > > > > +++ b/meta/classes/sanity.bbclass > > > > > @@ -470,7 +470,7 @@ def check_make_version(sanity_data): > > > > > > > > > > if bb.utils.vercmp_string_op(version, "4.2.1", "=="): > > > > > distro = oe.lsb.distro_identifier() > > > > > > > > Not directly related to your change, but shouldn't this be > > > > lsb_distro_identifier() instead of oe.lsb.distro_identifier()? > > > > > > lsb_distro_identifier would work when it is inheriting base.bbclass > > > otherwise the utility function is needed. > > > > Question isn't really whether it will work or not (if it doesn't work, > > we should make it work) but rather whether any user-defined > > LSB_DISTRO_ADJUST should be applied before checking if the host distro > > is based on Debian/Ubuntu or not. > > It would help to be a little more specific with the background. Having looked > at > the code, we have two lsb functions, one in base.bbclass and one in > oe/lib/lsb.py. The one in base.bbclass is a wrapper which uses > LSB_DISTRO_ADJUST. > > As far as I know, we don't use LSB_DISTRO_ADJUST in core at all. I suspect it > should really probably be added to the lsb.py function in most cases. Is there > any documentation or other info about when it should be applied and when it > should not?
Adding LSB_DISTRO_ADJUST directly to lsb.py would be fine I think. Personally I use LSB_DISTRO_ADJUST to map Linux Mint to Ubuntu. Linux Mint is binary compatible with Ubuntu (created from Ubuntu package feeds). The LSB_DISTRO_ADJUST mapping allows native sstate from a build server running Ubuntu to be reused on a developer laptop running Linux Mint. https://github.com/lgirdk/meta-mng/blob/ofw/conf/distro/include/mng-sstate.inc If the make 4.2.1 sanity check were to include LSB_DISTRO_ADJUST then (for me at least) it would suppress unnecessary warnings when running on Linux Mint (ie with the Ubuntu version of make). But in general, if we give users a method to adjust how their host distro is identified then we should enable it consistently unless there's a clear reason not to.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#164929): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/164929 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/90716488/21656 Group Owner: openembedded-core+ow...@lists.openembedded.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
