On Mon, 2025-02-03 at 22:19 +0000, chris.lapla...@agilent.com wrote: > > I've never liked that script and personally, I've always wanted to > > make bitbake's > > owm signature "diff" as helpful as we can. There are ton of > > different things > > that conspire against us in doing that and whilst we've improved, > > it still isn't > > ideal. > > > > I'd note that the script predates hash equivalence and that can be > > a big factor > > in things things like this. We've struggled to reconcile some of > > the tools with > > changes like hash equivalence :( > > > > So yes, I can imagine do_package matching between the two machines, > > then > > hashequiv would reuse the later tasks like do_package_write_rpm > > from sstate. > > Thanks for the info. > > Would this be the kind of thing that is best ported to bitbake- > diffsigs, maybe as some kind of recursive mode? (Just asking out of > curiosity - I don't yet have a strong enough grasp of all the > caching/signature stuff) > > For posterity, I hacked up the script with this patch and it fixed my > issue (whilst probably introducing other, subtler issues).
I'm not sure what the best thing to do is. The script can make some assumptions that bitbake can't and does in some ways have more data so it may not be possible but I've not looked at this area in a while... Cheers, Richard
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#210739): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/210739 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/110980697/21656 Group Owner: openembedded-core+ow...@lists.openembedded.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
