Generally, you should not be deleting things from tmp/deploy (or tmp/ for that matter) - either delete all of tmp/ and rely on sstate or don't touch it at all, and just re-run the build.
It helps if you provide steps to reproduce this behavior. Alex On Mon, 24 Oct 2022 at 10:36, Christian Thießen via lists.openembedded.org <[email protected]> wrote: > > (Cross-post: I first posted to > https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/yocto/message/58392, then realized that > according to the poky readme this list is more appropriate. Sorry, beginner's > mistake) > > Dear list, > when building an image with a Yocto setup based on kirkstone, it seems I've > come across an interesting corner case: The image built successfully, the > build/tmp/deploy/licenses/${IMAGE}-${MACHINE} symlink got updated as > expected, but that new directory contained only image_license.manifest. > license.manifest and package.manifest were missing. > I've discovered that these latter files are generated by the image's > do_rootfs task (ROOTFS_POSTPROCESS_COMMAND:prepend = "write_package_manifest; > license_create_manifest; " in poky/meta/classes/license_image.bbclass). This > task apparently did not need to be rerun in that particular build. > This behavior is at least a bit surprising to the user; bitbake claims to > have run everything that needed to be run, completes successfully and then > some files are just not there. It might be what happened here > https://lists.yoctoproject.org/g/yocto/message/49600 too. For me, it broke a > CI build that ran due to an environment change that didn't affect the image > and then failed to deploy the manifest files. I could run bitbake with -C > rootfs as a workaround, but that causes a warning and the problem could > probably better be fixed within the oe-core classes. I'm not sure how though: > Could the manifest generation be moved to a different point in the build, > e.g. where image_license.manifest is generated? Or should > build/tmp/deploy/licenses/${IMAGE}-${MACHINE} become a directory containing > symlinks to files, instead of a symlink to a new directory, so that things > that don't need to be updated can be retained? Maybe you have a completely > different idea? I'll leave that up for discussion. > Thank you, > > Christian Thießen > > >
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#172078): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/172078 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/94530086/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
