Hi Richard,
On 5/21/24 12:36 PM, Richard Purdie via lists.openembedded.org wrote:
The kernel has special handling of ${S} and it is therefore expected to be empty
at do_unpack time. For now, ignore this QA check until the kernel unpack process
can be more standardised.
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <[email protected]>
---
meta/classes-recipe/kernel-yocto.bbclass | 5 +++++
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
diff --git a/meta/classes-recipe/kernel-yocto.bbclass
b/meta/classes-recipe/kernel-yocto.bbclass
index e8ff7311c32..f741a342d40 100644
--- a/meta/classes-recipe/kernel-yocto.bbclass
+++ b/meta/classes-recipe/kernel-yocto.bbclass
@@ -440,6 +440,11 @@ do_kernel_metadata[depends] =
"kern-tools-native:do_populate_sysroot"
do_kernel_metadata[file-checksums] = " ${@get_dirs_with_fragments(d)}"
do_validate_branches[depends] = "kern-tools-native:do_populate_sysroot"
+# ${S} doesn't exist for us at unpack
+do_qa_unpack() {
+ return
+}
+
Shouldn't this rather be for all kernels?
meta/classes-recipe/kernelsrc.bbclass
sets S to STAGING_KERNEL_DIR which is in work-shared.
Won't we have an issue for other kernel recipes outside of kernel-yocto
that we should fix?
For example, my kernel recipes do not inherit kernel-yocto, so I
wouldn't benefit from this fix.
Basically, I'm suggesting we add do_qa_unpack() { return } to
kernelsrc.bbclass instead.
Cheers,
Quentin
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#199617):
https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/199617
Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/106220744/21656
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub
[[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
