[PATCH V3 0/2] populate_sdk_ext: two fixes

[PATCH V3 0/2] populate_sdk_ext: two fixes

[Chen Qi]

The following changes since commit 7ffe10df73cc20d10fcd41b121074445273bd60e:

  license_class: license_create_manifest improvment (2015-05-09 22:26:02 +0100)

are available in the git repository at:

  git://git.openembedded.org/openembedded-core-contrib ChenQi/populate_sdk_ext_2_fixes
  http://cgit.openembedded.org/cgit.cgi/openembedded-core-contrib/log/?h=ChenQi/populate_sdk_ext_2_fixes

Chen Qi (2):
  populate_sdk_ext: install the latest buildtools-tarball
  populate_sdk_ext: consider custom configuration in local.conf

 meta/classes/populate_sdk_ext.bbclass | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

-- 
1.9.1

[PATCH V3 1/2] populate_sdk_ext: install the latest buildtools-tarball

[Chen Qi]

If we do `bitbake buildtools-tarball' and then after one day do `bitbake
core-image-minimal -c populate_sdk_ext', we would meet errors like below.

| install: cannot stat '/buildarea2/chenqi/poky/build-systemd/tmp/deploy/sdk/
poky-glibc-x86_64-buildtools-tarball-core2-64-buildtools-nativesdk-standalone
-1.8+snapshot-20150429.sh': No such file or directory

The problem is that the output name for buildtools-tarball has ${DATE} in it.
So if populate_sdk_ext task is executed but buildtools-tarball is not rebuilt,
the above error appears.

Instead of hardcoding ${DISTRO_VERSION} which consists of ${DATE} in the
install_tools() function, we should find the latest buildtools-tarball based
on the modification time and install it.

[YOCTO #7674]

Signed-off-by: Chen Qi <Qi.Chen@windriver.com>
---
 meta/classes/populate_sdk_ext.bbclass | 4 +++-
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/meta/classes/populate_sdk_ext.bbclass b/meta/classes/populate_sdk_ext.bbclass
index dc2c58e..2fc4c11 100644
--- a/meta/classes/populate_sdk_ext.bbclass
+++ b/meta/classes/populate_sdk_ext.bbclass
@@ -168,7 +168,9 @@ install_tools() {
 	ln -sr ${SDK_OUTPUT}/${SDKPATH}/${scriptrelpath}/recipetool ${SDK_OUTPUT}/${SDKPATHNATIVE}${bindir_nativesdk}/recipetool
 	touch ${SDK_OUTPUT}/${SDKPATH}/.devtoolbase
 
-	install ${SDK_DEPLOY}/${DISTRO}-${TCLIBC}-${SDK_ARCH}-buildtools-tarball-${TUNE_PKGARCH}-buildtools-nativesdk-standalone-${DISTRO_VERSION}.sh ${SDK_OUTPUT}/${SDKPATH}
+	# find latest buildtools-tarball and install it
+	buildtools_path=`ls -t1 ${SDK_DEPLOY}/${DISTRO}-${TCLIBC}-${SDK_ARCH}-buildtools-tarball-${TUNE_PKGARCH}-buildtools-nativesdk-standalone-*.sh | head -n1`
+	install $buildtools_path ${SDK_OUTPUT}/${SDKPATH}
 
 	install ${SDK_DEPLOY}/${BUILD_ARCH}-nativesdk-libc.tar.bz2 ${SDK_OUTPUT}/${SDKPATH}
 }
-- 
1.9.1

[PATCH V3 2/2] populate_sdk_ext: consider custom configuration in local.conf

[Chen Qi]

Copy the contents of local.conf under TOPDIR into the final generated
local.conf. In this way, custom settings are also made into the final
local.conf like IMAGE_INSTALL, DISTRO_FEATURES, VIRTUAL-RUNTIME_xxx, etc.

Before this change, installing extensible SDK would usually report failure
when preparing the build system if the user has custom configuration for
DISTRO_FEATURES in local.conf. Also, items in IMAGE_INSTALL_append in local.conf
also don't get built correctly.

This patch solves the above problem.

A blacklist mechanism is also introduced so that we can blacklist variables that
should not be copied into the final local.conf file. Currently, the blacklist
contains 'TMPDIR', 'SSTATE_DIR', 'DL_DIR', 'STAMPS_DIR', 'BASE_WORKDIR' and
'DEPLOY_DIR'. What these variables have in common is that they are set in
bitbake.conf using '?=' or '??='.

In addition, we check to avoid any setting that might lead to host path
bleeding into SDK's configuration.

[YOCTO #7616]

Signed-off-by: Chen Qi <Qi.Chen@windriver.com>
---
 meta/classes/populate_sdk_ext.bbclass | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+)

diff --git a/meta/classes/populate_sdk_ext.bbclass b/meta/classes/populate_sdk_ext.bbclass
index 2fc4c11..49ba26b 100644
--- a/meta/classes/populate_sdk_ext.bbclass
+++ b/meta/classes/populate_sdk_ext.bbclass
@@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ SDK_RDEPENDS_append_task-populate-sdk-ext = " ${SDK_TARGETS}"
 SDK_RELOCATE_AFTER_INSTALL_task-populate-sdk-ext = "0"
 
 SDK_META_CONF_WHITELIST ?= "MACHINE DISTRO PACKAGE_CLASSES"
+SDK_META_CONF_BLACKLIST ?= "TMPDIR DL_DIR SSTATE_DIR STAMPS_DIR BASE_WORKDIR DEPLOY_DIR"
 
 SDK_TARGETS ?= "${PN}"
 OE_INIT_ENV_SCRIPT ?= "oe-init-build-env"
@@ -114,6 +115,28 @@ python copy_buildsystem () {
         f.write('# this configuration provides, it is strongly suggested that you set\n')
         f.write('# up a proper instance of the full build system and use that instead.\n\n')
 
+        # Copy configurations from the current local.conf
+        builddir = d.getVar('TOPDIR', True)
+        with open(builddir + '/conf/local.conf', 'r') as lf:
+            varblacklist = d.getVar('SDK_META_CONF_BLACKLIST', True).split()
+            skip = False
+            for line in lf:
+                line = line.lstrip()
+                if line.startswith('#'):
+                    continue
+                # avoid host path bleeding into SDK configuration
+                if line.find('"/') != -1:
+                    continue
+                for varname in varblacklist:
+                    if line.startswith(varname):
+                        skip = True
+                        break
+                if not skip:
+                    f.write(line)
+                skip = False
+        f.write('\n')
+
+        # Configurations in local.conf which are specific for extensible SDK
         f.write('INHERIT += "%s"\n\n' % 'uninative')
         f.write('CONF_VERSION = "%s"\n\n' % d.getVar('CONF_VERSION'))
 
-- 
1.9.1

Re: [PATCH V3 1/2] populate_sdk_ext: install the latest buildtools-tarball

[Khem Raj]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 583 bytes --]


> On May 11, 2015, at 11:19 PM, Chen Qi <Qi.Chen@windriver.com> wrote:
> 
> -	install ${SDK_DEPLOY}/${DISTRO}-${TCLIBC}-${SDK_ARCH}-buildtools-tarball-${TUNE_PKGARCH}-buildtools-nativesdk-standalone-${DISTRO_VERSION}.sh ${SDK_OUTPUT}/${SDKPATH}
> +	# find latest buildtools-tarball and install it
> +	buildtools_path=`ls -t1 ${SDK_DEPLOY}/${DISTRO}-${TCLIBC}-${SDK_ARCH}-buildtools-tarball-${TUNE_PKGARCH}-buildtools-nativesdk-standalone-*.sh | head -n1`
> +	install $buildtools_path ${SDK_OUTPUT}/${SDKPATH}
> 

why not create a symink instead of poking using wild chars

[-- Attachment #2: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 211 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH V3 1/2] populate_sdk_ext: install the latest buildtools-tarball

[ChenQi]

On 05/13/2015 12:19 AM, Khem Raj wrote:
>> On May 11, 2015, at 11:19 PM, Chen Qi <Qi.Chen@windriver.com> wrote:
>>
>> -	install ${SDK_DEPLOY}/${DISTRO}-${TCLIBC}-${SDK_ARCH}-buildtools-tarball-${TUNE_PKGARCH}-buildtools-nativesdk-standalone-${DISTRO_VERSION}.sh ${SDK_OUTPUT}/${SDKPATH}
>> +	# find latest buildtools-tarball and install it
>> +	buildtools_path=`ls -t1 ${SDK_DEPLOY}/${DISTRO}-${TCLIBC}-${SDK_ARCH}-buildtools-tarball-${TUNE_PKGARCH}-buildtools-nativesdk-standalone-*.sh | head -n1`
>> +	install $buildtools_path ${SDK_OUTPUT}/${SDKPATH}
>>
> why not create a symink instead of poking using wild chars

Because it's simpler.

//Chen Qi

Re: [PATCH V3 1/2] populate_sdk_ext: install the latest buildtools-tarball

[Khem Raj]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 813 bytes --]


> On May 12, 2015, at 6:45 PM, ChenQi <Qi.Chen@windriver.com> wrote:
> 
> On 05/13/2015 12:19 AM, Khem Raj wrote:
>>> On May 11, 2015, at 11:19 PM, Chen Qi <Qi.Chen@windriver.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> -	install ${SDK_DEPLOY}/${DISTRO}-${TCLIBC}-${SDK_ARCH}-buildtools-tarball-${TUNE_PKGARCH}-buildtools-nativesdk-standalone-${DISTRO_VERSION}.sh ${SDK_OUTPUT}/${SDKPATH}
>>> +	# find latest buildtools-tarball and install it
>>> +	buildtools_path=`ls -t1 ${SDK_DEPLOY}/${DISTRO}-${TCLIBC}-${SDK_ARCH}-buildtools-tarball-${TUNE_PKGARCH}-buildtools-nativesdk-standalone-*.sh | head -n1`
>>> +	install $buildtools_path ${SDK_OUTPUT}/${SDKPATH}
>>> 
>> why not create a symink instead of poking using wild chars
> 
> Because it's simpler.

what happens if I touch an older installer ?

> 
> //Chen Qi


[-- Attachment #2: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 211 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH V3 1/2] populate_sdk_ext: install the latest buildtools-tarball

[ChenQi]

On 05/13/2015 09:56 AM, Khem Raj wrote:
>> On May 12, 2015, at 6:45 PM, ChenQi <Qi.Chen@windriver.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 05/13/2015 12:19 AM, Khem Raj wrote:
>>>> On May 11, 2015, at 11:19 PM, Chen Qi <Qi.Chen@windriver.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> -	install ${SDK_DEPLOY}/${DISTRO}-${TCLIBC}-${SDK_ARCH}-buildtools-tarball-${TUNE_PKGARCH}-buildtools-nativesdk-standalone-${DISTRO_VERSION}.sh ${SDK_OUTPUT}/${SDKPATH}
>>>> +	# find latest buildtools-tarball and install it
>>>> +	buildtools_path=`ls -t1 ${SDK_DEPLOY}/${DISTRO}-${TCLIBC}-${SDK_ARCH}-buildtools-tarball-${TUNE_PKGARCH}-buildtools-nativesdk-standalone-*.sh | head -n1`
>>>> +	install $buildtools_path ${SDK_OUTPUT}/${SDKPATH}
>>>>
>>> why not create a symink instead of poking using wild chars
>> Because it's simpler.
> what happens if I touch an older installer ?

Hi Khem,

I make this patch to avoid installing a non-existent buildools-tarball.
If we touch an old buildtools-tarball, the installation would still 
succeed. The touched one is installed.
What would lead to a potential problem is the following situation.
The user built buildtools-tarball, after one day, he modified key part 
of buildtools-tarball recipe, rebuilt it, and then he deliberately 
touched the old one, and then he built an ext SDK.
I don't think that's a situation we need to take care of.
But if you insist that we should, you can suggest a reasonable symlink 
name and I would make a new patch.

Best Regards,
Chen Qi

>
>> //Chen Qi

Re: [PATCH V3 1/2] populate_sdk_ext: install the latest buildtools-tarball

[Paul Eggleton]

On Wednesday 13 May 2015 10:27:34 ChenQi wrote:
> On 05/13/2015 09:56 AM, Khem Raj wrote:
> >> On May 12, 2015, at 6:45 PM, ChenQi <Qi.Chen@windriver.com> wrote:
> >> 
> >> On 05/13/2015 12:19 AM, Khem Raj wrote:
> >>>> On May 11, 2015, at 11:19 PM, Chen Qi <Qi.Chen@windriver.com> wrote:
> >>>> 
> >>>> -	install
> >>>> ${SDK_DEPLOY}/${DISTRO}-${TCLIBC}-${SDK_ARCH}-buildtools-tarball-${TUN
> >>>> E_PKGARCH}-buildtools-nativesdk-standalone-${DISTRO_VERSION}.sh
> >>>> ${SDK_OUTPUT}/${SDKPATH} +	# find latest buildtools-tarball and
> >>>> install it
> >>>> +	buildtools_path=`ls -t1
> >>>> ${SDK_DEPLOY}/${DISTRO}-${TCLIBC}-${SDK_ARCH}-buildtools-tarball-${TUN
> >>>> E_PKGARCH}-buildtools-nativesdk-standalone-*.sh | head -n1` +	
install
> >>>> $buildtools_path ${SDK_OUTPUT}/${SDKPATH}
> >>> 
> >>> why not create a symink instead of poking using wild chars
> >> 
> >> Because it's simpler.
> > 
> > what happens if I touch an older installer ?
> 
> Hi Khem,
> 
> I make this patch to avoid installing a non-existent buildools-tarball.
> If we touch an old buildtools-tarball, the installation would still
> succeed. The touched one is installed.
> What would lead to a potential problem is the following situation.
> The user built buildtools-tarball, after one day, he modified key part
> of buildtools-tarball recipe, rebuilt it, and then he deliberately
> touched the old one, and then he built an ext SDK.
> I don't think that's a situation we need to take care of.
> But if you insist that we should, you can suggest a reasonable symlink
> name and I would make a new patch.

Honestly I don't see this is as being a problem we need to handle - who is 
going to touch this file during normal usage? Builds failing under the 
conditions described is a much more pressing issue at this point.

It could be that we should re-visit whether using buildtools-tarball rather 
than having its contents be part of the native portion of the SDK is the right 
approach. I'm not sure that we need to do that just at this moment though.

Cheers,
Paul

-- 

Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre

Re: [PATCH V3 1/2] populate_sdk_ext: install the latest buildtools-tarball

[Khem Raj]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2546 bytes --]


> On May 13, 2015, at 4:03 AM, Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> 
> On Wednesday 13 May 2015 10:27:34 ChenQi wrote:
>> On 05/13/2015 09:56 AM, Khem Raj wrote:
>>>> On May 12, 2015, at 6:45 PM, ChenQi <Qi.Chen@windriver.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On 05/13/2015 12:19 AM, Khem Raj wrote:
>>>>>> On May 11, 2015, at 11:19 PM, Chen Qi <Qi.Chen@windriver.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -	install
>>>>>> ${SDK_DEPLOY}/${DISTRO}-${TCLIBC}-${SDK_ARCH}-buildtools-tarball-${TUN
>>>>>> E_PKGARCH}-buildtools-nativesdk-standalone-${DISTRO_VERSION}.sh
>>>>>> ${SDK_OUTPUT}/${SDKPATH} +	# find latest buildtools-tarball and
>>>>>> install it
>>>>>> +	buildtools_path=`ls -t1
>>>>>> ${SDK_DEPLOY}/${DISTRO}-${TCLIBC}-${SDK_ARCH}-buildtools-tarball-${TUN
>>>>>> E_PKGARCH}-buildtools-nativesdk-standalone-*.sh | head -n1` +
> install
>>>>>> $buildtools_path ${SDK_OUTPUT}/${SDKPATH}
>>>>> 
>>>>> why not create a symink instead of poking using wild chars
>>>> 
>>>> Because it's simpler.
>>> 
>>> what happens if I touch an older installer ?
>> 
>> Hi Khem,
>> 
>> I make this patch to avoid installing a non-existent buildools-tarball.
>> If we touch an old buildtools-tarball, the installation would still
>> succeed. The touched one is installed.
>> What would lead to a potential problem is the following situation.
>> The user built buildtools-tarball, after one day, he modified key part
>> of buildtools-tarball recipe, rebuilt it, and then he deliberately
>> touched the old one, and then he built an ext SDK.
>> I don't think that's a situation we need to take care of.
>> But if you insist that we should, you can suggest a reasonable symlink
>> name and I would make a new patch.
> 
> Honestly I don't see this is as being a problem we need to handle - who is
> going to touch this file during normal usage? Builds failing under the
> conditions described is a much more pressing issue at this point.
> 

It has caused issues when we used such an approach for other artifacts
and debugging it was hard since we lost trackability with wildcads I was just sharing the experience. Ofcource
the issue at hand is always pressing thats why we are fixing it.

> It could be that we should re-visit whether using buildtools-tarball rather
> than having its contents be part of the native portion of the SDK is the right
> approach. I'm not sure that we need to do that just at this moment though.
> 
> Cheers,
> Paul
> 
> --
> 
> Paul Eggleton
> Intel Open Source Technology Centre


[-- Attachment #2: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 211 bytes --]