From: Richard Purdie <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: [bitbake-devel] reproducible build and yocto sdk
Date: Mon, 29 May 2023 14:43:15 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> (raw)
On Mon, 2023-05-29 at 09:53 +0000, Kenth Eriksson via
> I'm having issues with reproducible builds on kirkstone when
> comparing a build driven by bitbake compared to a build driven from a
> yocto sdk. Can I expect reproducible build between bitbake builds and
> sdk builds? Some produced binaries have minor differences, but larger
> c++ binaries show quite huge diff. One common difference is that the
> ELF header seems to have different OS/ABI between the two builds. Can
> binutils on different host give such a result?
This is probably an OE-Core question rather than a bitbake one.
Offhand, it looks like the linker is using --hash-style=gnu for one and
--hash-style=sysv for the other.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-05-29 13:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-05-29 9:53 reproducible build and yocto sdk Kenth Eriksson
2023-05-29 13:43 ` Richard Purdie [this message]
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).