On Sun, 2022-02-13 at 21:34 +0100, Peter Kjellerstedt wrote: > Differences in COMMON_LICENSE_DIR should not affect the task hashes. > > Signed-off-by: Peter Kjellerstedt <[email protected]> > --- > meta/conf/bitbake.conf | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/meta/conf/bitbake.conf b/meta/conf/bitbake.conf > index fba99e8f0c..47c8cb39f9 100644 > --- a/meta/conf/bitbake.conf > +++ b/meta/conf/bitbake.conf > @@ -922,7 +922,7 @@ BB_HASHEXCLUDE_COMMON ?= "TMPDIR FILE PATH PWD > BB_TASKHASH BBPATH BBSERVER DL_DI > BB_WORKERCONTEXT BB_LIMITEDDEPS BB_UNIHASH extend_recipe_sysroot > DEPLOY_DIR \ > SSTATE_HASHEQUIV_METHOD SSTATE_HASHEQUIV_REPORT_TASKDATA \ > SSTATE_HASHEQUIV_OWNER CCACHE_TOP_DIR BB_HASHSERVE > GIT_CEILING_DIRECTORIES \ > - OMP_NUM_THREADS BB_CURRENTTASK" > + OMP_NUM_THREADS BB_CURRENTTASK COMMON_LICENSE_DIR" > BB_HASHBASE_WHITELIST ?= "${BB_HASHEXCLUDE_COMMON} PSEUDO_IGNORE_PATHS > BUILDHISTORY_DIR \ > SSTATE_DIR SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH" > BB_HASHCONFIG_WHITELIST ?= "${BB_HASHEXCLUDE_COMMON} DATE TIME SSH_AGENT_PID > \
I think this has been discussed before and I'm very uneasy at the idea. Some users would expect that if they add "their" version of a license in a layer with higher priority, they'd expect the hashes to change. Where is this causing an issue? The whole idea of the "common" licenses probably needs revisiting anyway too :/ Cheers, Richard
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#161692): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/161692 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/89121479/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
