On Thu, 2024-10-10 at 13:25 +0800, Phil Reid via lists.openembedded.org wrote: > Changes to the logic of is_work_shared where made in > commit: 5fbb4ca8da4f4f1ea426275c45634802dcb5a575 > "archiver.bbclass: Improve work-shared checking" > > The resuled in a change of the logic (simplifed here) from: > inherits(gcc-source) or inherits(kernel) or (inherits(kernelsrc) > and srcin(work-shared)) > to just > srcin(work-shared) > > With INHERIT += "archiver" in the local.conf and a kernel recipe that > uses > KERNEL_PACKAGE_NAME. When KERNEL_PACKAGE_NAME is defined the kernel > source is not placed into work-shared, but the archiver ends up > deleting the source folder in the work dir, and the build > subsequently fails. > > Restore the previous logic while also mainting the referenced commits > intent > to consider all recipes that use work-shared. Logic is now > inherits(gcc-source) or inherits(kernel) or srcin(work-shared) > > Signed-off-by: Phil Reid <[email protected]> > --- > meta/classes/archiver.bbclass | 5 ++++- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
You're effectively reverting that commit whilst changing the logic so it looks slightly different. Was there a problem with gcc-source archiving as I notice the patch adds gcc-source back too? The commit message isn't quite accurate as gcc-source isn't something which gets inherited. Does this only happen with kernel recipes which use KERNEL_PACKAGE_NAME? That might be the key missing detail which would allow us to reproduce the failure. Cheers, Richard
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#205386): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/205386 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/108924104/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
