Overriding SDE_FILE

Overriding SDE_FILE

[Jacob Kroon]

Hi Douglas,

You updated a comment in reproducible_build.bbclass, commit 
e7b891b76954c784f5a93bd0a1c91315673ce40d:

> -# Once the value of SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is determined, it is stored in the recipe's ${SDE_FILE}.
> +# Once the value of SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is determined, it is stored in the recipe's SDE_FILE.
> +# If none of these mechanisms are suitable, replace the do_deploy_source_date_epoch task
> +# with recipe-specific functionality to write the appropriate SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH into the SDE_FILE.
> +#

But I can't really get this to work. What did work for me was to replace 
"do_create_source_date_epoch_stamp()" in my recipe:

do_create_source_date_epoch_stamp() {
     mkdir -p ${SDE_DIR}
     date -d "1981-03-03" "+%s" > ${SDE_FILE}
}

What is the intended way to achieve the thing I'm trying to do here ?

Cheers,
Jacob

Re: Overriding SDE_FILE

[Jacob Kroon]

On 2/24/20 8:25 AM, Jacob Kroon wrote:
> Hi Douglas,
> 
> You updated a comment in reproducible_build.bbclass, commit 
> e7b891b76954c784f5a93bd0a1c91315673ce40d:
> 
>> -# Once the value of SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is determined, it is stored in 
>> the recipe's ${SDE_FILE}.
>> +# Once the value of SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is determined, it is stored in 
>> the recipe's SDE_FILE.
>> +# If none of these mechanisms are suitable, replace the 
>> do_deploy_source_date_epoch task
>> +# with recipe-specific functionality to write the appropriate 
>> SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH into the SDE_FILE.
>> +#
> 
> But I can't really get this to work. What did work for me was to replace 
> "do_create_source_date_epoch_stamp()" in my recipe:
> 
> do_create_source_date_epoch_stamp() {
>      mkdir -p ${SDE_DIR}
>      date -d "1981-03-03" "+%s" > ${SDE_FILE}
> }
> 
> What is the intended way to achieve the thing I'm trying to do here ?
> 

FYI, JPEW has a proposed patch here

http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/commit/?h=jpew/reproducible&id=d091d2aa53ea417f70c10f5ce89151820c3db9ce

for allowing a recipe to just set SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH directly.

But maybe that currently is at odds with SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH being in 
BB_HASHBASE_WHITELIST ?

/Jacob

Re: Overriding SDE_FILE

[Douglas Royds]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1958 bytes --]

On 26/02/20 4:53 am, Jacob Kroon wrote:

> On 2/24/20 8:25 AM, Jacob Kroon wrote:
>> Hi Douglas,
>>
>> You updated a comment in reproducible_build.bbclass, commit 
>> e7b891b76954c784f5a93bd0a1c91315673ce40d:
>>
>>> -# Once the value of SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is determined, it is stored 
>>> in the recipe's ${SDE_FILE}.
>>> +# Once the value of SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is determined, it is stored 
>>> in the recipe's SDE_FILE.
>>> +# If none of these mechanisms are suitable, replace the 
>>> do_deploy_source_date_epoch task
>>> +# with recipe-specific functionality to write the appropriate 
>>> SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH into the SDE_FILE.
>>> +#
>>
>> But I can't really get this to work. What did work for me was to 
>> replace "do_create_source_date_epoch_stamp()" in my recipe:
>>
>> do_create_source_date_epoch_stamp() {
>>      mkdir -p ${SDE_DIR}
>>      date -d "1981-03-03" "+%s" > ${SDE_FILE}
>> }
>>
>> What is the intended way to achieve the thing I'm trying to do here ?
>>
>
> FYI, JPEW has a proposed patch here
>
> http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/commit/?h=jpew/reproducible&id=d091d2aa53ea417f70c10f5ce89151820c3db9ce 
>
>
> for allowing a recipe to just set SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH directly.
>
> But maybe that currently is at odds with SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH being in 
> BB_HASHBASE_WHITELIST ?
>
> /Jacob


On the surface of it, my comment appears to be just wrong: It does make 
sense to replace do_create_source_date_epoch_stamp() as you suggest.

Joshua's proposed patch looks promising:

  * Should the new function not be called first, so that it takes
    priority over the git, known files, and youngest file functions? If
    someone has explicitly set SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH, then they want it to
    take priority.
  * As you observe, SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH would need to be removed from
    BB_HASHBASE_WHITELIST. I'm not sure why it was in the whitelist in
    the first place.


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3156 bytes --]

Re: Overriding SDE_FILE

[Joshua Watt]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2566 bytes --]


On 2/26/20 11:46 PM, Douglas Royds wrote:
>
> On 26/02/20 4:53 am, Jacob Kroon wrote:
>
>> On 2/24/20 8:25 AM, Jacob Kroon wrote:
>>> Hi Douglas,
>>>
>>> You updated a comment in reproducible_build.bbclass, commit 
>>> e7b891b76954c784f5a93bd0a1c91315673ce40d:
>>>
>>>> -# Once the value of SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is determined, it is stored 
>>>> in the recipe's ${SDE_FILE}.
>>>> +# Once the value of SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is determined, it is stored 
>>>> in the recipe's SDE_FILE.
>>>> +# If none of these mechanisms are suitable, replace the 
>>>> do_deploy_source_date_epoch task
>>>> +# with recipe-specific functionality to write the appropriate 
>>>> SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH into the SDE_FILE.
>>>> +#
>>>
>>> But I can't really get this to work. What did work for me was to 
>>> replace "do_create_source_date_epoch_stamp()" in my recipe:
>>>
>>> do_create_source_date_epoch_stamp() {
>>>      mkdir -p ${SDE_DIR}
>>>      date -d "1981-03-03" "+%s" > ${SDE_FILE}
>>> }
>>>
>>> What is the intended way to achieve the thing I'm trying to do here ?
>>>
>>
>> FYI, JPEW has a proposed patch here
>>
>> http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/commit/?h=jpew/reproducible&id=d091d2aa53ea417f70c10f5ce89151820c3db9ce 
>>
>>
>> for allowing a recipe to just set SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH directly.
>>
>> But maybe that currently is at odds with SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH being in 
>> BB_HASHBASE_WHITELIST ?
>>
>> /Jacob
>
>
> On the surface of it, my comment appears to be just wrong: It does 
> make sense to replace do_create_source_date_epoch_stamp() as you suggest.
>
> Joshua's proposed patch looks promising:
>
>   * Should the new function not be called first, so that it takes
>     priority over the git, known files, and youngest file functions?
>     If someone has explicitly set SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH, then they want it
>     to take priority.
>
Having that be the first option makes sense. The only case in which that 
might not work, is if a recipe does something like:

  SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH = "${@my_awesome_sde_calculation(d)}"

e.g. uses a function to get the SDE instead of setting to a fixed value, 
but that's probably going to be extremely rare.


>  *
>
>
>
>   * As you observe, SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH would need to be removed from
>     BB_HASHBASE_WHITELIST. I'm not sure why it was in the whitelist in
>     the first place.
>
I'm not sure why exactly it is whitelisted; I didn't write the original 
code that whitelisted it, but I've CC'd Juro in case he happens to remember.



[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4130 bytes --]

Re: Overriding SDE_FILE

[Joshua Watt]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3134 bytes --]


On 2/27/20 9:01 AM, Joshua Watt wrote:
>
>
> On 2/26/20 11:46 PM, Douglas Royds wrote:
>>
>> On 26/02/20 4:53 am, Jacob Kroon wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/24/20 8:25 AM, Jacob Kroon wrote:
>>>> Hi Douglas,
>>>>
>>>> You updated a comment in reproducible_build.bbclass, commit 
>>>> e7b891b76954c784f5a93bd0a1c91315673ce40d:
>>>>
>>>>> -# Once the value of SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is determined, it is stored 
>>>>> in the recipe's ${SDE_FILE}.
>>>>> +# Once the value of SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is determined, it is stored 
>>>>> in the recipe's SDE_FILE.
>>>>> +# If none of these mechanisms are suitable, replace the 
>>>>> do_deploy_source_date_epoch task
>>>>> +# with recipe-specific functionality to write the appropriate 
>>>>> SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH into the SDE_FILE.
>>>>> +#
>>>>
>>>> But I can't really get this to work. What did work for me was to 
>>>> replace "do_create_source_date_epoch_stamp()" in my recipe:
>>>>
>>>> do_create_source_date_epoch_stamp() {
>>>>      mkdir -p ${SDE_DIR}
>>>>      date -d "1981-03-03" "+%s" > ${SDE_FILE}
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> What is the intended way to achieve the thing I'm trying to do here ?
>>>>
>>>
>>> FYI, JPEW has a proposed patch here
>>>
>>> http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/commit/?h=jpew/reproducible&id=d091d2aa53ea417f70c10f5ce89151820c3db9ce 
>>>
>>>
>>> for allowing a recipe to just set SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH directly.
>>>
>>> But maybe that currently is at odds with SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH being in 
>>> BB_HASHBASE_WHITELIST ?
>>>
>>> /Jacob
>>
>>
>> On the surface of it, my comment appears to be just wrong: It does 
>> make sense to replace do_create_source_date_epoch_stamp() as you suggest.
>>
>> Joshua's proposed patch looks promising:
>>
>>   * Should the new function not be called first, so that it takes
>>     priority over the git, known files, and youngest file functions?
>>     If someone has explicitly set SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH, then they want
>>     it to take priority.
>>
> Having that be the first option makes sense. The only case in which 
> that might not work, is if a recipe does something like:
>
>  SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH = "${@my_awesome_sde_calculation(d)}"
>
> e.g. uses a function to get the SDE instead of setting to a fixed 
> value, but that's probably going to be extremely rare.
>
>
>>  *
>>
>>
>>
>>   * As you observe, SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH would need to be removed from
>>     BB_HASHBASE_WHITELIST. I'm not sure why it was in the whitelist
>>     in the first place.
>>
> I'm not sure why exactly it is whitelisted; I didn't write the 
> original code that whitelisted it, but I've CC'd Juro in case he 
> happens to remember.
>
After a discussion with Richard, we figured out why SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH 
has to be whitelisted. The value of the variable *must* be calculable at 
parse time before any task is ran, but in practice it's value is only 
available once the __source_date_epoch.txt file is present, which is 
after parsing. This causes the taskhash to be calculated differently 
during parsing and task execution which causes taskhash mismatch errors.



[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5126 bytes --]

Re: Overriding SDE_FILE

[Douglas Royds]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3397 bytes --]

On 28/02/20 5:45 am, Joshua Watt wrote:

> On 2/27/20 9:01 AM, Joshua Watt wrote:
>> On 2/26/20 11:46 PM, Douglas Royds wrote:
>>>
>>> On 26/02/20 4:53 am, Jacob Kroon wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/24/20 8:25 AM, Jacob Kroon wrote:
>>>>> Hi Douglas,
>>>>>
>>>>> You updated a comment in reproducible_build.bbclass, commit 
>>>>> e7b891b76954c784f5a93bd0a1c91315673ce40d:
>>>>>
>>>>>> -# Once the value of SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is determined, it is 
>>>>>> stored in the recipe's ${SDE_FILE}.
>>>>>> +# Once the value of SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is determined, it is 
>>>>>> stored in the recipe's SDE_FILE.
>>>>>> +# If none of these mechanisms are suitable, replace the 
>>>>>> do_deploy_source_date_epoch task
>>>>>> +# with recipe-specific functionality to write the appropriate 
>>>>>> SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH into the SDE_FILE.
>>>>>> +#
>>>>>
>>>>> But I can't really get this to work. What did work for me was to 
>>>>> replace "do_create_source_date_epoch_stamp()" in my recipe:
>>>>>
>>>>> do_create_source_date_epoch_stamp() {
>>>>>      mkdir -p ${SDE_DIR}
>>>>>      date -d "1981-03-03" "+%s" > ${SDE_FILE}
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> What is the intended way to achieve the thing I'm trying to do here ?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> FYI, JPEW has a proposed patch here
>>>>
>>>> http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/commit/?h=jpew/reproducible&id=d091d2aa53ea417f70c10f5ce89151820c3db9ce 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> for allowing a recipe to just set SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH directly.
>>>>
>>>> But maybe that currently is at odds with SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH being in 
>>>> BB_HASHBASE_WHITELIST ?
>>>>
>>>> /Jacob
>>>
>>>
>>> On the surface of it, my comment appears to be just wrong: It does 
>>> make sense to replace do_create_source_date_epoch_stamp() as you 
>>> suggest.
>>>
>>> Joshua's proposed patch looks promising:
>>>
>>>   * Should the new function not be called first, so that it takes
>>>     priority over the git, known files, and youngest file functions?
>>>     If someone has explicitly set SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH, then they want
>>>     it to take priority.
>>>
>> Having that be the first option makes sense. The only case in which 
>> that might not work, is if a recipe does something like:
>>
>>  SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH = "${@my_awesome_sde_calculation(d)}"
>>
>> e.g. uses a function to get the SDE instead of setting to a fixed 
>> value, but that's probably going to be extremely rare.
>>
>>
>>>  *
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>   * As you observe, SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH would need to be removed from
>>>     BB_HASHBASE_WHITELIST. I'm not sure why it was in the whitelist
>>>     in the first place.
>>>
>> I'm not sure why exactly it is whitelisted; I didn't write the 
>> original code that whitelisted it, but I've CC'd Juro in case he 
>> happens to remember.
>>
> After a discussion with Richard, we figured out why SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH 
> has to be whitelisted. The value of the variable *must* be calculable 
> at parse time before any task is ran, but in practice it's value is 
> only available once the __source_date_epoch.txt file is present, which 
> is after parsing. This causes the taskhash to be calculated 
> differently during parsing and task execution which causes taskhash 
> mismatch errors.
>

True.

What to do? Would it work to use a different non-whitelisted variable in 
the recipe, eg. SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH_FIXED?


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5915 bytes --]

Re: Overriding SDE_FILE

[Joshua Watt]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4012 bytes --]


On 2/27/20 3:22 PM, Douglas Royds wrote:
>
> On 28/02/20 5:45 am, Joshua Watt wrote:
>
>> On 2/27/20 9:01 AM, Joshua Watt wrote:
>>> On 2/26/20 11:46 PM, Douglas Royds wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 26/02/20 4:53 am, Jacob Kroon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/24/20 8:25 AM, Jacob Kroon wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Douglas,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You updated a comment in reproducible_build.bbclass, commit 
>>>>>> e7b891b76954c784f5a93bd0a1c91315673ce40d:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -# Once the value of SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is determined, it is 
>>>>>>> stored in the recipe's ${SDE_FILE}.
>>>>>>> +# Once the value of SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is determined, it is 
>>>>>>> stored in the recipe's SDE_FILE.
>>>>>>> +# If none of these mechanisms are suitable, replace the 
>>>>>>> do_deploy_source_date_epoch task
>>>>>>> +# with recipe-specific functionality to write the appropriate 
>>>>>>> SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH into the SDE_FILE.
>>>>>>> +#
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But I can't really get this to work. What did work for me was to 
>>>>>> replace "do_create_source_date_epoch_stamp()" in my recipe:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> do_create_source_date_epoch_stamp() {
>>>>>>      mkdir -p ${SDE_DIR}
>>>>>>      date -d "1981-03-03" "+%s" > ${SDE_FILE}
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is the intended way to achieve the thing I'm trying to do 
>>>>>> here ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> FYI, JPEW has a proposed patch here
>>>>>
>>>>> http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/commit/?h=jpew/reproducible&id=d091d2aa53ea417f70c10f5ce89151820c3db9ce 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> for allowing a recipe to just set SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH directly.
>>>>>
>>>>> But maybe that currently is at odds with SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH being 
>>>>> in BB_HASHBASE_WHITELIST ?
>>>>>
>>>>> /Jacob
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On the surface of it, my comment appears to be just wrong: It does 
>>>> make sense to replace do_create_source_date_epoch_stamp() as you 
>>>> suggest.
>>>>
>>>> Joshua's proposed patch looks promising:
>>>>
>>>>   * Should the new function not be called first, so that it takes
>>>>     priority over the git, known files, and youngest file
>>>>     functions? If someone has explicitly set SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH,
>>>>     then they want it to take priority.
>>>>
>>> Having that be the first option makes sense. The only case in which 
>>> that might not work, is if a recipe does something like:
>>>
>>>  SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH = "${@my_awesome_sde_calculation(d)}"
>>>
>>> e.g. uses a function to get the SDE instead of setting to a fixed 
>>> value, but that's probably going to be extremely rare.
>>>
>>>
>>>>  *
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   * As you observe, SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH would need to be removed from
>>>>     BB_HASHBASE_WHITELIST. I'm not sure why it was in the whitelist
>>>>     in the first place.
>>>>
>>> I'm not sure why exactly it is whitelisted; I didn't write the 
>>> original code that whitelisted it, but I've CC'd Juro in case he 
>>> happens to remember.
>>>
>> After a discussion with Richard, we figured out why SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH 
>> has to be whitelisted. The value of the variable *must* be calculable 
>> at parse time before any task is ran, but in practice it's value is 
>> only available once the __source_date_epoch.txt file is present, 
>> which is after parsing. This causes the taskhash to be calculated 
>> differently during parsing and task execution which causes taskhash 
>> mismatch errors.
>>
>
> True.
>
> What to do? Would it work to use a different non-whitelisted variable 
> in the recipe, eg. SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH_FIXED?
>

Ya, that would work. You'd have to figure out how to get the variable to 
be included in each taskhash even though it's not directly referenced, 
but I'm sure that's possible.


Another option that's at lot more "magic" would be something like this: 
http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/commit/?h=jpew/reproducible&id=2b524916cf35238ff3deea34017e8a4cd73926cd 


That's really weird, and I'm not sure I like it, but worth a thought.



[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 7012 bytes --]

Re: Overriding SDE_FILE

[Douglas Royds]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4410 bytes --]

On 28/02/20 10:49 am, Joshua Watt wrote:

>
> On 2/27/20 3:22 PM, Douglas Royds wrote:
>>
>> On 28/02/20 5:45 am, Joshua Watt wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/27/20 9:01 AM, Joshua Watt wrote:
>>>> On 2/26/20 11:46 PM, Douglas Royds wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 26/02/20 4:53 am, Jacob Kroon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/24/20 8:25 AM, Jacob Kroon wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Douglas,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You updated a comment in reproducible_build.bbclass, commit 
>>>>>>> e7b891b76954c784f5a93bd0a1c91315673ce40d:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -# Once the value of SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is determined, it is 
>>>>>>>> stored in the recipe's ${SDE_FILE}.
>>>>>>>> +# Once the value of SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is determined, it is 
>>>>>>>> stored in the recipe's SDE_FILE.
>>>>>>>> +# If none of these mechanisms are suitable, replace the 
>>>>>>>> do_deploy_source_date_epoch task
>>>>>>>> +# with recipe-specific functionality to write the appropriate 
>>>>>>>> SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH into the SDE_FILE.
>>>>>>>> +#
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But I can't really get this to work. What did work for me was to 
>>>>>>> replace "do_create_source_date_epoch_stamp()" in my recipe:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> do_create_source_date_epoch_stamp() {
>>>>>>>      mkdir -p ${SDE_DIR}
>>>>>>>      date -d "1981-03-03" "+%s" > ${SDE_FILE}
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What is the intended way to achieve the thing I'm trying to do 
>>>>>>> here ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FYI, JPEW has a proposed patch here
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/commit/?h=jpew/reproducible&id=d091d2aa53ea417f70c10f5ce89151820c3db9ce 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> for allowing a recipe to just set SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH directly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But maybe that currently is at odds with SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH being 
>>>>>> in BB_HASHBASE_WHITELIST ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /Jacob
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On the surface of it, my comment appears to be just wrong: It does 
>>>>> make sense to replace do_create_source_date_epoch_stamp() as you 
>>>>> suggest.
>>>>>
>>>>> Joshua's proposed patch looks promising:
>>>>>
>>>>>   * Should the new function not be called first, so that it takes
>>>>>     priority over the git, known files, and youngest file
>>>>>     functions? If someone has explicitly set SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH,
>>>>>     then they want it to take priority.
>>>>>
>>>> Having that be the first option makes sense. The only case in which 
>>>> that might not work, is if a recipe does something like:
>>>>
>>>>  SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH = "${@my_awesome_sde_calculation(d)}"
>>>>
>>>> e.g. uses a function to get the SDE instead of setting to a fixed 
>>>> value, but that's probably going to be extremely rare.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>  *
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>   * As you observe, SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH would need to be removed
>>>>>     from BB_HASHBASE_WHITELIST. I'm not sure why it was in the
>>>>>     whitelist in the first place.
>>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure why exactly it is whitelisted; I didn't write the 
>>>> original code that whitelisted it, but I've CC'd Juro in case he 
>>>> happens to remember.
>>>>
>>> After a discussion with Richard, we figured out why 
>>> SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH has to be whitelisted. The value of the variable 
>>> *must* be calculable at parse time before any task is ran, but in 
>>> practice it's value is only available once the 
>>> __source_date_epoch.txt file is present, which is after parsing. 
>>> This causes the taskhash to be calculated differently during parsing 
>>> and task execution which causes taskhash mismatch errors.
>>>
>>
>> True.
>>
>> What to do? Would it work to use a different non-whitelisted variable 
>> in the recipe, eg. SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH_FIXED?
>>
>
> Ya, that would work. You'd have to figure out how to get the variable 
> to be included in each taskhash even though it's not directly 
> referenced, but I'm sure that's possible.
>
>
> Another option that's at lot more "magic" would be something like 
> this: 
> http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/commit/?h=jpew/reproducible&id=2b524916cf35238ff3deea34017e8a4cd73926cd 
>
>
> That's really weird, and I'm not sure I like it, but worth a thought.
>
If it works, it's good. I like the fact that the user can just set 
SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH directly in their recipe.

How about ...

    BB_HASHBASE_WHITELIST += "${@'SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH' if not
    source_date_epoch_var(d) else ''}"


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 8214 bytes --]

Re: Overriding SDE_FILE

[Joshua Watt]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4712 bytes --]


On 2/27/20 4:29 PM, Douglas Royds wrote:
>
> On 28/02/20 10:49 am, Joshua Watt wrote:
>
>>
>> On 2/27/20 3:22 PM, Douglas Royds wrote:
>>>
>>> On 28/02/20 5:45 am, Joshua Watt wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/27/20 9:01 AM, Joshua Watt wrote:
>>>>> On 2/26/20 11:46 PM, Douglas Royds wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 26/02/20 4:53 am, Jacob Kroon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/24/20 8:25 AM, Jacob Kroon wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi Douglas,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You updated a comment in reproducible_build.bbclass, commit 
>>>>>>>> e7b891b76954c784f5a93bd0a1c91315673ce40d:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -# Once the value of SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is determined, it is 
>>>>>>>>> stored in the recipe's ${SDE_FILE}.
>>>>>>>>> +# Once the value of SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is determined, it is 
>>>>>>>>> stored in the recipe's SDE_FILE.
>>>>>>>>> +# If none of these mechanisms are suitable, replace the 
>>>>>>>>> do_deploy_source_date_epoch task
>>>>>>>>> +# with recipe-specific functionality to write the appropriate 
>>>>>>>>> SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH into the SDE_FILE.
>>>>>>>>> +#
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But I can't really get this to work. What did work for me was 
>>>>>>>> to replace "do_create_source_date_epoch_stamp()" in my recipe:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> do_create_source_date_epoch_stamp() {
>>>>>>>>      mkdir -p ${SDE_DIR}
>>>>>>>>      date -d "1981-03-03" "+%s" > ${SDE_FILE}
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What is the intended way to achieve the thing I'm trying to do 
>>>>>>>> here ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> FYI, JPEW has a proposed patch here
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/commit/?h=jpew/reproducible&id=d091d2aa53ea417f70c10f5ce89151820c3db9ce 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> for allowing a recipe to just set SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH directly.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But maybe that currently is at odds with SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH being 
>>>>>>> in BB_HASHBASE_WHITELIST ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /Jacob
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On the surface of it, my comment appears to be just wrong: It 
>>>>>> does make sense to replace do_create_source_date_epoch_stamp() as 
>>>>>> you suggest.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Joshua's proposed patch looks promising:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   * Should the new function not be called first, so that it takes
>>>>>>     priority over the git, known files, and youngest file
>>>>>>     functions? If someone has explicitly set SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH,
>>>>>>     then they want it to take priority.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Having that be the first option makes sense. The only case in 
>>>>> which that might not work, is if a recipe does something like:
>>>>>
>>>>>  SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH = "${@my_awesome_sde_calculation(d)}"
>>>>>
>>>>> e.g. uses a function to get the SDE instead of setting to a fixed 
>>>>> value, but that's probably going to be extremely rare.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>  *
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   * As you observe, SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH would need to be removed
>>>>>>     from BB_HASHBASE_WHITELIST. I'm not sure why it was in the
>>>>>>     whitelist in the first place.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure why exactly it is whitelisted; I didn't write the 
>>>>> original code that whitelisted it, but I've CC'd Juro in case he 
>>>>> happens to remember.
>>>>>
>>>> After a discussion with Richard, we figured out why 
>>>> SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH has to be whitelisted. The value of the variable 
>>>> *must* be calculable at parse time before any task is ran, but in 
>>>> practice it's value is only available once the 
>>>> __source_date_epoch.txt file is present, which is after parsing. 
>>>> This causes the taskhash to be calculated differently during 
>>>> parsing and task execution which causes taskhash mismatch errors.
>>>>
>>>
>>> True.
>>>
>>> What to do? Would it work to use a different non-whitelisted 
>>> variable in the recipe, eg. SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH_FIXED?
>>>
>>
>> Ya, that would work. You'd have to figure out how to get the variable 
>> to be included in each taskhash even though it's not directly 
>> referenced, but I'm sure that's possible.
>>
>>
>> Another option that's at lot more "magic" would be something like 
>> this: 
>> http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/commit/?h=jpew/reproducible&id=2b524916cf35238ff3deea34017e8a4cd73926cd 
>>
>>
>> That's really weird, and I'm not sure I like it, but worth a thought.
>>
> If it works, it's good. I like the fact that the user can just set 
> SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH directly in their recipe.
>
> How about ...
>
>     BB_HASHBASE_WHITELIST += "${@'SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH' if not
>     source_date_epoch_var(d) else ''}"
>
Ya, that works. The only reason I chose "is None" was in case a user 
really wanted to do

   SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH = "0"




[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 8780 bytes --]

Re: Overriding SDE_FILE

[Douglas Royds]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4916 bytes --]

On 28/02/20 11:34 am, Joshua Watt wrote:

>
> On 2/27/20 4:29 PM, Douglas Royds wrote:
>>
>> On 28/02/20 10:49 am, Joshua Watt wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 2/27/20 3:22 PM, Douglas Royds wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 28/02/20 5:45 am, Joshua Watt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/27/20 9:01 AM, Joshua Watt wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/26/20 11:46 PM, Douglas Royds wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 26/02/20 4:53 am, Jacob Kroon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/24/20 8:25 AM, Jacob Kroon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi Douglas,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You updated a comment in reproducible_build.bbclass, commit 
>>>>>>>>> e7b891b76954c784f5a93bd0a1c91315673ce40d:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -# Once the value of SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is determined, it is 
>>>>>>>>>> stored in the recipe's ${SDE_FILE}.
>>>>>>>>>> +# Once the value of SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is determined, it is 
>>>>>>>>>> stored in the recipe's SDE_FILE.
>>>>>>>>>> +# If none of these mechanisms are suitable, replace the 
>>>>>>>>>> do_deploy_source_date_epoch task
>>>>>>>>>> +# with recipe-specific functionality to write the 
>>>>>>>>>> appropriate SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH into the SDE_FILE.
>>>>>>>>>> +#
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But I can't really get this to work. What did work for me was 
>>>>>>>>> to replace "do_create_source_date_epoch_stamp()" in my recipe:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> do_create_source_date_epoch_stamp() {
>>>>>>>>>      mkdir -p ${SDE_DIR}
>>>>>>>>>      date -d "1981-03-03" "+%s" > ${SDE_FILE}
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What is the intended way to achieve the thing I'm trying to do 
>>>>>>>>> here ?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> FYI, JPEW has a proposed patch here
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/commit/?h=jpew/reproducible&id=d091d2aa53ea417f70c10f5ce89151820c3db9ce 
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> for allowing a recipe to just set SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH directly.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But maybe that currently is at odds with SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH 
>>>>>>>> being in BB_HASHBASE_WHITELIST ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> /Jacob
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On the surface of it, my comment appears to be just wrong: It 
>>>>>>> does make sense to replace do_create_source_date_epoch_stamp() 
>>>>>>> as you suggest.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Joshua's proposed patch looks promising:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   * Should the new function not be called first, so that it
>>>>>>>     takes priority over the git, known files, and youngest file
>>>>>>>     functions? If someone has explicitly set SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH,
>>>>>>>     then they want it to take priority.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Having that be the first option makes sense. The only case in 
>>>>>> which that might not work, is if a recipe does something like:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH = "${@my_awesome_sde_calculation(d)}"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> e.g. uses a function to get the SDE instead of setting to a fixed 
>>>>>> value, but that's probably going to be extremely rare.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  *
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   * As you observe, SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH would need to be removed
>>>>>>>     from BB_HASHBASE_WHITELIST. I'm not sure why it was in the
>>>>>>>     whitelist in the first place.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not sure why exactly it is whitelisted; I didn't write the 
>>>>>> original code that whitelisted it, but I've CC'd Juro in case he 
>>>>>> happens to remember.
>>>>>>
>>>>> After a discussion with Richard, we figured out why 
>>>>> SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH has to be whitelisted. The value of the variable 
>>>>> *must* be calculable at parse time before any task is ran, but in 
>>>>> practice it's value is only available once the 
>>>>> __source_date_epoch.txt file is present, which is after parsing. 
>>>>> This causes the taskhash to be calculated differently during 
>>>>> parsing and task execution which causes taskhash mismatch errors.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> True.
>>>>
>>>> What to do? Would it work to use a different non-whitelisted 
>>>> variable in the recipe, eg. SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH_FIXED?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ya, that would work. You'd have to figure out how to get the 
>>> variable to be included in each taskhash even though it's not 
>>> directly referenced, but I'm sure that's possible.
>>>
>>>
>>> Another option that's at lot more "magic" would be something like 
>>> this: 
>>> http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/commit/?h=jpew/reproducible&id=2b524916cf35238ff3deea34017e8a4cd73926cd 
>>>
>>>
>>> That's really weird, and I'm not sure I like it, but worth a thought.
>>>
>> If it works, it's good. I like the fact that the user can just set 
>> SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH directly in their recipe.
>>
>> How about ...
>>
>>     BB_HASHBASE_WHITELIST += "${@'SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH' if not
>>     source_date_epoch_var(d) else ''}"
>>
> Ya, that works. The only reason I chose "is None" was in case a user 
> really wanted to do
>
>   SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH = "0"
>
True, best to allow for that.


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 9882 bytes --]

Re: Overriding SDE_FILE

[Jacob Kroon]

On 2/27/20 11:35 PM, Douglas Royds via Openembedded-core wrote:
> On 28/02/20 11:34 am, Joshua Watt wrote:
> 
>>
>> On 2/27/20 4:29 PM, Douglas Royds wrote:
>>>
>>> On 28/02/20 10:49 am, Joshua Watt wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2/27/20 3:22 PM, Douglas Royds wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 28/02/20 5:45 am, Joshua Watt wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/27/20 9:01 AM, Joshua Watt wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/26/20 11:46 PM, Douglas Royds wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 26/02/20 4:53 am, Jacob Kroon wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/20 8:25 AM, Jacob Kroon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Douglas,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You updated a comment in reproducible_build.bbclass, commit 
>>>>>>>>>> e7b891b76954c784f5a93bd0a1c91315673ce40d:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -# Once the value of SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is determined, it is 
>>>>>>>>>>> stored in the recipe's ${SDE_FILE}.
>>>>>>>>>>> +# Once the value of SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is determined, it is 
>>>>>>>>>>> stored in the recipe's SDE_FILE.
>>>>>>>>>>> +# If none of these mechanisms are suitable, replace the 
>>>>>>>>>>> do_deploy_source_date_epoch task
>>>>>>>>>>> +# with recipe-specific functionality to write the 
>>>>>>>>>>> appropriate SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH into the SDE_FILE.
>>>>>>>>>>> +#
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But I can't really get this to work. What did work for me was 
>>>>>>>>>> to replace "do_create_source_date_epoch_stamp()" in my recipe:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> do_create_source_date_epoch_stamp() {
>>>>>>>>>>      mkdir -p ${SDE_DIR}
>>>>>>>>>>      date -d "1981-03-03" "+%s" > ${SDE_FILE}
>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What is the intended way to achieve the thing I'm trying to do 
>>>>>>>>>> here ?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> FYI, JPEW has a proposed patch here
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/commit/?h=jpew/reproducible&id=d091d2aa53ea417f70c10f5ce89151820c3db9ce 
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> for allowing a recipe to just set SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH directly.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But maybe that currently is at odds with SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH 
>>>>>>>>> being in BB_HASHBASE_WHITELIST ?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> /Jacob
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On the surface of it, my comment appears to be just wrong: It 
>>>>>>>> does make sense to replace do_create_source_date_epoch_stamp() 
>>>>>>>> as you suggest.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Joshua's proposed patch looks promising:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>   * Should the new function not be called first, so that it
>>>>>>>>     takes priority over the git, known files, and youngest file
>>>>>>>>     functions? If someone has explicitly set SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH,
>>>>>>>>     then they want it to take priority.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Having that be the first option makes sense. The only case in 
>>>>>>> which that might not work, is if a recipe does something like:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH = "${@my_awesome_sde_calculation(d)}"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> e.g. uses a function to get the SDE instead of setting to a fixed 
>>>>>>> value, but that's probably going to be extremely rare.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  *
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>   * As you observe, SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH would need to be removed
>>>>>>>>     from BB_HASHBASE_WHITELIST. I'm not sure why it was in the
>>>>>>>>     whitelist in the first place.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not sure why exactly it is whitelisted; I didn't write the 
>>>>>>> original code that whitelisted it, but I've CC'd Juro in case he 
>>>>>>> happens to remember.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> After a discussion with Richard, we figured out why 
>>>>>> SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH has to be whitelisted. The value of the variable 
>>>>>> *must* be calculable at parse time before any task is ran, but in 
>>>>>> practice it's value is only available once the 
>>>>>> __source_date_epoch.txt file is present, which is after parsing. 
>>>>>> This causes the taskhash to be calculated differently during 
>>>>>> parsing and task execution which causes taskhash mismatch errors.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> True.
>>>>>
>>>>> What to do? Would it work to use a different non-whitelisted 
>>>>> variable in the recipe, eg. SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH_FIXED?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ya, that would work. You'd have to figure out how to get the 
>>>> variable to be included in each taskhash even though it's not 
>>>> directly referenced, but I'm sure that's possible.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Another option that's at lot more "magic" would be something like 
>>>> this: 
>>>> http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/commit/?h=jpew/reproducible&id=2b524916cf35238ff3deea34017e8a4cd73926cd 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's really weird, and I'm not sure I like it, but worth a thought.
>>>>
>>> If it works, it's good. I like the fact that the user can just set 
>>> SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH directly in their recipe.
>>>
>>> How about ...
>>>
>>>     BB_HASHBASE_WHITELIST += "${@'SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH' if not
>>>     source_date_epoch_var(d) else ''}"
>>>
>> Ya, that works. The only reason I chose "is None" was in case a user 
>> really wanted to do
>>
>>   SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH = "0"
>>
> True, best to allow for that.
> 

Joshua, I just tried the two top patches in your reproducible branch; I 
can see that SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is not in BB_HASHBASE_WHITELIST, however, 
changing its value in my recipe doesn't trigger rebuilding for some reason..

Re: Overriding SDE_FILE

[Jacob Kroon]

On 2/28/20 2:39 PM, Jacob Kroon wrote:
> On 2/27/20 11:35 PM, Douglas Royds via Openembedded-core wrote:
>> On 28/02/20 11:34 am, Joshua Watt wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 2/27/20 4:29 PM, Douglas Royds wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 28/02/20 10:49 am, Joshua Watt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/27/20 3:22 PM, Douglas Royds wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 28/02/20 5:45 am, Joshua Watt wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/27/20 9:01 AM, Joshua Watt wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/26/20 11:46 PM, Douglas Royds wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 26/02/20 4:53 am, Jacob Kroon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/20 8:25 AM, Jacob Kroon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Douglas,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You updated a comment in reproducible_build.bbclass, commit 
>>>>>>>>>>> e7b891b76954c784f5a93bd0a1c91315673ce40d:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> -# Once the value of SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is determined, it is 
>>>>>>>>>>>> stored in the recipe's ${SDE_FILE}.
>>>>>>>>>>>> +# Once the value of SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is determined, it is 
>>>>>>>>>>>> stored in the recipe's SDE_FILE.
>>>>>>>>>>>> +# If none of these mechanisms are suitable, replace the 
>>>>>>>>>>>> do_deploy_source_date_epoch task
>>>>>>>>>>>> +# with recipe-specific functionality to write the 
>>>>>>>>>>>> appropriate SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH into the SDE_FILE.
>>>>>>>>>>>> +#
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But I can't really get this to work. What did work for me was 
>>>>>>>>>>> to replace "do_create_source_date_epoch_stamp()" in my recipe:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> do_create_source_date_epoch_stamp() {
>>>>>>>>>>>      mkdir -p ${SDE_DIR}
>>>>>>>>>>>      date -d "1981-03-03" "+%s" > ${SDE_FILE}
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What is the intended way to achieve the thing I'm trying to 
>>>>>>>>>>> do here ?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> FYI, JPEW has a proposed patch here
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/commit/?h=jpew/reproducible&id=d091d2aa53ea417f70c10f5ce89151820c3db9ce 
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> for allowing a recipe to just set SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH directly.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But maybe that currently is at odds with SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH 
>>>>>>>>>> being in BB_HASHBASE_WHITELIST ?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> /Jacob
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On the surface of it, my comment appears to be just wrong: It 
>>>>>>>>> does make sense to replace do_create_source_date_epoch_stamp() 
>>>>>>>>> as you suggest.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Joshua's proposed patch looks promising:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>   * Should the new function not be called first, so that it
>>>>>>>>>     takes priority over the git, known files, and youngest file
>>>>>>>>>     functions? If someone has explicitly set SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH,
>>>>>>>>>     then they want it to take priority.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Having that be the first option makes sense. The only case in 
>>>>>>>> which that might not work, is if a recipe does something like:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH = "${@my_awesome_sde_calculation(d)}"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> e.g. uses a function to get the SDE instead of setting to a 
>>>>>>>> fixed value, but that's probably going to be extremely rare.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  *
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>   * As you observe, SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH would need to be removed
>>>>>>>>>     from BB_HASHBASE_WHITELIST. I'm not sure why it was in the
>>>>>>>>>     whitelist in the first place.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not sure why exactly it is whitelisted; I didn't write the 
>>>>>>>> original code that whitelisted it, but I've CC'd Juro in case he 
>>>>>>>> happens to remember.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> After a discussion with Richard, we figured out why 
>>>>>>> SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH has to be whitelisted. The value of the 
>>>>>>> variable *must* be calculable at parse time before any task is 
>>>>>>> ran, but in practice it's value is only available once the 
>>>>>>> __source_date_epoch.txt file is present, which is after parsing. 
>>>>>>> This causes the taskhash to be calculated differently during 
>>>>>>> parsing and task execution which causes taskhash mismatch errors.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What to do? Would it work to use a different non-whitelisted 
>>>>>> variable in the recipe, eg. SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH_FIXED?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ya, that would work. You'd have to figure out how to get the 
>>>>> variable to be included in each taskhash even though it's not 
>>>>> directly referenced, but I'm sure that's possible.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Another option that's at lot more "magic" would be something like 
>>>>> this: 
>>>>> http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/commit/?h=jpew/reproducible&id=2b524916cf35238ff3deea34017e8a4cd73926cd 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That's really weird, and I'm not sure I like it, but worth a thought.
>>>>>
>>>> If it works, it's good. I like the fact that the user can just set 
>>>> SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH directly in their recipe.
>>>>
>>>> How about ...
>>>>
>>>>     BB_HASHBASE_WHITELIST += "${@'SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH' if not
>>>>     source_date_epoch_var(d) else ''}"
>>>>
>>> Ya, that works. The only reason I chose "is None" was in case a user 
>>> really wanted to do
>>>
>>>   SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH = "0"
>>>
>> True, best to allow for that.
>>
> 
> Joshua, I just tried the two top patches in your reproducible branch; I 
> can see that SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is not in BB_HASHBASE_WHITELIST, however, 
> changing its value in my recipe doesn't trigger rebuilding for some 
> reason..

In case it makes a difference, I only reference ${SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH} in 
my do_install() task.

Re: Overriding SDE_FILE

[Joshua Watt]

On 2/28/20 7:41 AM, Jacob Kroon wrote:
> On 2/28/20 2:39 PM, Jacob Kroon wrote:
>> On 2/27/20 11:35 PM, Douglas Royds via Openembedded-core wrote:
>>> On 28/02/20 11:34 am, Joshua Watt wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2/27/20 4:29 PM, Douglas Royds wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 28/02/20 10:49 am, Joshua Watt wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/27/20 3:22 PM, Douglas Royds wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 28/02/20 5:45 am, Joshua Watt wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/27/20 9:01 AM, Joshua Watt wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2/26/20 11:46 PM, Douglas Royds wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 26/02/20 4:53 am, Jacob Kroon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/20 8:25 AM, Jacob Kroon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Douglas,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You updated a comment in reproducible_build.bbclass, commit 
>>>>>>>>>>>> e7b891b76954c784f5a93bd0a1c91315673ce40d:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -# Once the value of SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is determined, it 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is stored in the recipe's ${SDE_FILE}.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> +# Once the value of SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is determined, it 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is stored in the recipe's SDE_FILE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> +# If none of these mechanisms are suitable, replace the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> do_deploy_source_date_epoch task
>>>>>>>>>>>>> +# with recipe-specific functionality to write the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> appropriate SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH into the SDE_FILE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> +#
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But I can't really get this to work. What did work for me 
>>>>>>>>>>>> was to replace "do_create_source_date_epoch_stamp()" in my 
>>>>>>>>>>>> recipe:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> do_create_source_date_epoch_stamp() {
>>>>>>>>>>>>      mkdir -p ${SDE_DIR}
>>>>>>>>>>>>      date -d "1981-03-03" "+%s" > ${SDE_FILE}
>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What is the intended way to achieve the thing I'm trying to 
>>>>>>>>>>>> do here ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> FYI, JPEW has a proposed patch here
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/commit/?h=jpew/reproducible&id=d091d2aa53ea417f70c10f5ce89151820c3db9ce 
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> for allowing a recipe to just set SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH directly.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> But maybe that currently is at odds with SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH 
>>>>>>>>>>> being in BB_HASHBASE_WHITELIST ?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> /Jacob
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On the surface of it, my comment appears to be just wrong: It 
>>>>>>>>>> does make sense to replace 
>>>>>>>>>> do_create_source_date_epoch_stamp() as you suggest.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Joshua's proposed patch looks promising:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   * Should the new function not be called first, so that it
>>>>>>>>>>     takes priority over the git, known files, and youngest file
>>>>>>>>>>     functions? If someone has explicitly set SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH,
>>>>>>>>>>     then they want it to take priority.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Having that be the first option makes sense. The only case in 
>>>>>>>>> which that might not work, is if a recipe does something like:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>  SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH = "${@my_awesome_sde_calculation(d)}"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> e.g. uses a function to get the SDE instead of setting to a 
>>>>>>>>> fixed value, but that's probably going to be extremely rare.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>  *
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   * As you observe, SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH would need to be removed
>>>>>>>>>>     from BB_HASHBASE_WHITELIST. I'm not sure why it was in the
>>>>>>>>>>     whitelist in the first place.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure why exactly it is whitelisted; I didn't write the 
>>>>>>>>> original code that whitelisted it, but I've CC'd Juro in case 
>>>>>>>>> he happens to remember.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> After a discussion with Richard, we figured out why 
>>>>>>>> SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH has to be whitelisted. The value of the 
>>>>>>>> variable *must* be calculable at parse time before any task is 
>>>>>>>> ran, but in practice it's value is only available once the 
>>>>>>>> __source_date_epoch.txt file is present, which is after 
>>>>>>>> parsing. This causes the taskhash to be calculated differently 
>>>>>>>> during parsing and task execution which causes taskhash 
>>>>>>>> mismatch errors.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What to do? Would it work to use a different non-whitelisted 
>>>>>>> variable in the recipe, eg. SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH_FIXED?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ya, that would work. You'd have to figure out how to get the 
>>>>>> variable to be included in each taskhash even though it's not 
>>>>>> directly referenced, but I'm sure that's possible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Another option that's at lot more "magic" would be something like 
>>>>>> this: 
>>>>>> http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/commit/?h=jpew/reproducible&id=2b524916cf35238ff3deea34017e8a4cd73926cd 
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's really weird, and I'm not sure I like it, but worth a 
>>>>>> thought.
>>>>>>
>>>>> If it works, it's good. I like the fact that the user can just set 
>>>>> SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH directly in their recipe.
>>>>>
>>>>> How about ...
>>>>>
>>>>>     BB_HASHBASE_WHITELIST += "${@'SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH' if not
>>>>>     source_date_epoch_var(d) else ''}"
>>>>>
>>>> Ya, that works. The only reason I chose "is None" was in case a 
>>>> user really wanted to do
>>>>
>>>>   SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH = "0"
>>>>
>>> True, best to allow for that.
>>>
>>
>> Joshua, I just tried the two top patches in your reproducible branch; 
>> I can see that SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is not in BB_HASHBASE_WHITELIST, 
>> however, changing its value in my recipe doesn't trigger rebuilding 
>> for some reason..
>
> In case it makes a difference, I only reference ${SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH} 
> in my do_install() task.


I don't think it matters. My understanding is that an export variable 
(like SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH) is included in the taskhash of all tasks unless 
it is specifically whitelisted. It's possible there is some bug I 
haven't throughly tested it yet.... or it just can't work that way at 
all for some reason. You might be able to dump the task signature for 
your do_install task to see if SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is being included.

Re: Overriding SDE_FILE

[Jacob Kroon]

On 2/28/20 3:18 PM, Joshua Watt wrote:
> 
> On 2/28/20 7:41 AM, Jacob Kroon wrote:
>> On 2/28/20 2:39 PM, Jacob Kroon wrote:
>>> On 2/27/20 11:35 PM, Douglas Royds via Openembedded-core wrote:
>>>> On 28/02/20 11:34 am, Joshua Watt wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2/27/20 4:29 PM, Douglas Royds wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 28/02/20 10:49 am, Joshua Watt wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/27/20 3:22 PM, Douglas Royds wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 28/02/20 5:45 am, Joshua Watt wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2/27/20 9:01 AM, Joshua Watt wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2/26/20 11:46 PM, Douglas Royds wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 26/02/20 4:53 am, Jacob Kroon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2/24/20 8:25 AM, Jacob Kroon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Douglas,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You updated a comment in reproducible_build.bbclass, commit 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> e7b891b76954c784f5a93bd0a1c91315673ce40d:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -# Once the value of SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is determined, it 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is stored in the recipe's ${SDE_FILE}.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +# Once the value of SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is determined, it 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is stored in the recipe's SDE_FILE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +# If none of these mechanisms are suitable, replace the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do_deploy_source_date_epoch task
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +# with recipe-specific functionality to write the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appropriate SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH into the SDE_FILE.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +#
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I can't really get this to work. What did work for me 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> was to replace "do_create_source_date_epoch_stamp()" in my 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> recipe:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> do_create_source_date_epoch_stamp() {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>      mkdir -p ${SDE_DIR}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>      date -d "1981-03-03" "+%s" > ${SDE_FILE}
>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is the intended way to achieve the thing I'm trying to 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> do here ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> FYI, JPEW has a proposed patch here
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/commit/?h=jpew/reproducible&id=d091d2aa53ea417f70c10f5ce89151820c3db9ce 
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> for allowing a recipe to just set SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH directly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But maybe that currently is at odds with SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH 
>>>>>>>>>>>> being in BB_HASHBASE_WHITELIST ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> /Jacob
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On the surface of it, my comment appears to be just wrong: It 
>>>>>>>>>>> does make sense to replace 
>>>>>>>>>>> do_create_source_date_epoch_stamp() as you suggest.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Joshua's proposed patch looks promising:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>   * Should the new function not be called first, so that it
>>>>>>>>>>>     takes priority over the git, known files, and youngest file
>>>>>>>>>>>     functions? If someone has explicitly set SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH,
>>>>>>>>>>>     then they want it to take priority.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Having that be the first option makes sense. The only case in 
>>>>>>>>>> which that might not work, is if a recipe does something like:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>  SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH = "${@my_awesome_sde_calculation(d)}"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> e.g. uses a function to get the SDE instead of setting to a 
>>>>>>>>>> fixed value, but that's probably going to be extremely rare.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>  *
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>   * As you observe, SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH would need to be removed
>>>>>>>>>>>     from BB_HASHBASE_WHITELIST. I'm not sure why it was in the
>>>>>>>>>>>     whitelist in the first place.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure why exactly it is whitelisted; I didn't write the 
>>>>>>>>>> original code that whitelisted it, but I've CC'd Juro in case 
>>>>>>>>>> he happens to remember.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> After a discussion with Richard, we figured out why 
>>>>>>>>> SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH has to be whitelisted. The value of the 
>>>>>>>>> variable *must* be calculable at parse time before any task is 
>>>>>>>>> ran, but in practice it's value is only available once the 
>>>>>>>>> __source_date_epoch.txt file is present, which is after 
>>>>>>>>> parsing. This causes the taskhash to be calculated differently 
>>>>>>>>> during parsing and task execution which causes taskhash 
>>>>>>>>> mismatch errors.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> True.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What to do? Would it work to use a different non-whitelisted 
>>>>>>>> variable in the recipe, eg. SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH_FIXED?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ya, that would work. You'd have to figure out how to get the 
>>>>>>> variable to be included in each taskhash even though it's not 
>>>>>>> directly referenced, but I'm sure that's possible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Another option that's at lot more "magic" would be something like 
>>>>>>> this: 
>>>>>>> http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/commit/?h=jpew/reproducible&id=2b524916cf35238ff3deea34017e8a4cd73926cd 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's really weird, and I'm not sure I like it, but worth a 
>>>>>>> thought.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> If it works, it's good. I like the fact that the user can just set 
>>>>>> SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH directly in their recipe.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How about ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     BB_HASHBASE_WHITELIST += "${@'SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH' if not
>>>>>>     source_date_epoch_var(d) else ''}"
>>>>>>
>>>>> Ya, that works. The only reason I chose "is None" was in case a 
>>>>> user really wanted to do
>>>>>
>>>>>   SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH = "0"
>>>>>
>>>> True, best to allow for that.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Joshua, I just tried the two top patches in your reproducible branch; 
>>> I can see that SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is not in BB_HASHBASE_WHITELIST, 
>>> however, changing its value in my recipe doesn't trigger rebuilding 
>>> for some reason..
>>
>> In case it makes a difference, I only reference ${SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH} 
>> in my do_install() task.
> 
> 
> I don't think it matters. My understanding is that an export variable 
> (like SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH) is included in the taskhash of all tasks unless 
> it is specifically whitelisted. It's possible there is some bug I 
> haven't throughly tested it yet.... or it just can't work that way at 
> all for some reason. You might be able to dump the task signature for 
> your do_install task to see if SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is being included.
> 

Using bitbake-dumpsig I can see that SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is still in 
"basewhitelist:"