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"