On Thu, 2023-08-10 at 17:27 +0200, Alexander Kanavin wrote: > On Thu 10. Aug 2023 at 17.10, Richard Purdie > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, 2023-08-10 at 16:57 +0200, Alexander Kanavin wrote: > > > I don’t follow i am afraid. How would having separate usr expose > > > issues that merged usr would hide? > > > > Most host systems are moving over to merged usr. If host paths to a > > binary were to creep in (e.g. the path to a tool, /usr/bin/xxx), > > our > > non usrmerge config would be more likely to generate a > > reproducibility > > mismatch than one with usrmerge enabled. > > But then it would creep into both build A and build B since both > would come from the same host or two hosts both with usrmerge, and > there would be no mismatch. No?
True, I'm thinking of something slightly different. I'm thinking having usrmerge disabled makes it more likely we'd notice a "bad" tool path creeping into builds rather than the case where the host and target share the same paths. That isn't a reproducibility case, more a general one. Cheers, Richard
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#185801): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/185801 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/100663206/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
