On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 2:37 PM Adrian Freihofer <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, 2024-07-18 at 10:39 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 10:00 AM Adrian Freihofer > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Martin > > > > > > Thank you for looking at my patches. > > > > > > On Mon, 2024-07-15 at 16:32 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote: > > > > Doesn't it still rebuild from scratch when IMAGE_VERSION_SUFFIX > > > > changes? > > > > > > I wonder why this happens in WebOS. I think that this line > > > kernel_do_deploy[vardepsexclude] = "DATETIME" > > > prevents such unnecessary rebuilds. > > > > Hi Adrian, > > > > yes DATETIME is excluded by default, but it's useful to use different > > suffix in IMAGE_VERSION_SUFFIX (e.g. BUILD_NUMBER from CI on jenkins > > or release version when building release) and in such cases you don't > > want to vardepexclude it, because it's useful to produce matching > > version in images as well as kernel (and other artifacts you might > > have), so your 1.2.1 release images doesn't end with 1.2.0 kernel > > artifacts just because kernel sstate signature didn't change in 1.2.1 > > bugfix release. > > > > Does this make sense? I bet it would happen in your builds as well. > > I try to optimize everything towards binary-reproducible builds. This > means that we remove all kinds of variables that change because the > time changes or because the CI build ID changes or something like that. > I see no benefit in compiling such information into the firmware. > But the problem I see is that such ideas clash with efficient and > binary-reproducible builds. > > That means that I don't see a reason for changing the > IMAGE_VERSION_SUFFIX variable in such a way. > > > > > Whole point of: > > https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12937 > > is to allow "renaming" (adding more hardlinks) artifacts with > > matching > > IMAGE_VERSION_SUFFIX without the need of rebuilding anything (e.g. > > version-less kernel artifacts are re-used from sstate and then only > > quick deploy-links task is executed to add right versioned hardlinks > > in deploy directory.) > > > > Well, yes, it would. But, I am confident that it is a better strategy > to simply not do this than to support it. > > If such non-reproducible information is needed anyway, it can be > archived independently of Bitbake.
Well the changes from: https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12937 make the builds _more_ reproducible, because they move the DATETIME or whatever IMAGE_VERSION_SUFFIX out of the artifacts in sstate and move creating versioned names to separate task which can be disabled (by setting IMAGE_VERSION_SUFFIX to empty if you prefer not to create them).
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#202212): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/202212 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/107231736/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
