On Wed, 2012-05-09 at 16:04 -0700, Rich Pixley wrote: > On 5/9/12 12:52 , Richard Purdie wrote: > > On Wed, 2012-05-09 at 10:51 -0700, Rich Pixley wrote: > >> On 5/8/12 05:34 , Richard Purdie wrote: > >>> On Sun, 2012-05-06 at 10:36 -0700, Rich Pixley wrote: > >>>> Any other ideas? > >>> Well, this clearly doesn't happen with master or in any combination of > >>> the layers most users are using. The logical conclusion would be that > >>> there is something in your layer that is somehow triggering this. > >> No private layer involved. > >> > >> I do have a makefile which encapsulates the environment stuff, but > >> that's it. > >>> Of course since that layer is secret and you can't show us it, we have a > >>> bit of a problem. Can you reproduce the bug against public code? > >> Done. (Our layer is becoming open, we're committed to it, but it's a > >> long process internally). > >>> Are you by any chance setting BB_STAMP_POLICY somewhere? > >> Yes. BB_STAMP_POLICY = "full". > >> > >> I'll attach a copy of my local.conf and bblayers.conf. > > I'm 95% sure its BB_STAMP_POLICY = "full" causing the problems. The idea > > is really that sstate and other recent developments obsolete the "full" > > stamp code. I'm not sure it actually gets on with the setscene stamps > > the sstate code generates, as I suspect you're discovering. > > > > We could try and fix the "full" policy, or we could just remove it. > > Looking at the code for the function that deals with this in > > runqueue.py, I can see where problems could occur. > > > > So I guess I'm asking if we should fix that or can we remove it? > Um... I'm not sure. > > In the past, that was required to get everything built in an incremental > fashion. That is, if A depended on B depended on C and C changed, > BB_STAMP_POLICY = "full" was the only way to get A to be rebuilt > automatically. > > Are you saying that this happens automatically now even without the > BB_STAMP_POLICY = "full" setting? Or that some other setting is more > appropriate and perhaps has semantics I don't know? Or that the current > default is no incremental rebuilds? Or... ?
The settings that are now recommended are: BB_SIGNATURE_HANDLER ?= 'OEBasicHash' OELAYOUT_ABI = "8" This requires a rebuild since the stamp file format changes, hence the ABI number increase. Currently, poky and angstrom use these settings amongst others but its not default in OE-Core. I'll likely propose a change to make it the default soon though. This would then make BB_STAMP_POLICY = "full" obsolete and yet incremental builds will work correctly and likely rebuild less things (only really what potentially changed). Cheers, Richard _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
