> -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Purdie <[email protected]> > Sent: den 5 mars 2021 18:54 > To: Peter Kjellerstedt <[email protected]>; Martin Jansa > <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected] > Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] glib-2.0: call os.path.normpath on THISDIR > > On Fri, 2021-03-05 at 15:52 +0000, Peter Kjellerstedt wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Martin Jansa <[email protected]> > > > Sent: den 5 mars 2021 12:51 > > > To: Peter Kjellerstedt <[email protected]> > > > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; > > > > > > > > Actually, thinking a bit more on this, I believe that with my patch > > > > applied, this patch should _not_ be applied. That is because it > makes > > > > the paths relative to thisdir, but then uses ${THISDIR} when using > > > > them. Thus if thisdir is normalized, it may no longer match > ${THISDIR} > > > > and the relative paths will not work as intended. > > > > > > I'm sorry I've tested and wrote that part of commit message when I had > > > if os.path.exists(filename): > > > at the beginning of this whole section, which I've then re-wrote to > just > > > store only existing filenames in files as a list instead of a map (to > > > simplify the rest of this function as well), but then I was wondering > > > why Ross used the map in the initial implementation here: > > > https://git.openembedded.org/openembedded- > > > core/commit/?id=5acd9cbc9d5c6355010775250fb25f043441c5cd > > > and assumed it was needed to get all possible filenames in > > > do_configure[file-checksums] in case they are created later. > > > > > > So I've removed all my cleanups and returned to smallest change to > just > > > replace COREBASE with THISDIR. > > > > > > What about checking the existence before showing the error, that will > > > show an error only when matching file exists while keeping all > > > not-skipped paths in do_configure[file-checksums] even when they don't > > > exist yet. > > > > > > Will send a patch for this shortly. > > > > Any objections to my patch, where there is no need for the bb.error() > > in the first place? > > Your patch encodes the paths of layers relative to each other into the > sstate checksums. I'm not sure we want to encourage that and this code > will end up copy and pasted around without people realising what they're > doing :/.
Hmm, I guess that may be considered bad. :/ > Cheers, > > Richard Then we will have to decide on what to do with the cross-files. Currently the code tries to handle cross-files provided by any layer, but with the recent changes and without mine it really only supports specifying cross-files in the same layer where the recipe is. So we will either have to find a way to actually support cross-files from multiple layers, or we may as well rip out the current attempt at supporting it. //Peter
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#149063): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/149063 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/81034785/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
