From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-GM-THRID: 6708705003020746752 X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:418:: with SMTP id d24mr4361573eja.258.1562343140513; Fri, 05 Jul 2019 09:12:20 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: isar-users@googlegroups.com Received: by 2002:a17:906:7f15:: with SMTP id d21ls2329603ejr.1.gmail; Fri, 05 Jul 2019 09:12:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxAxq7fhK6gsRiBGUvzNrdm234zPaiG4Fy9hUTKcjCuY6+XbNfRmzZaXY8lYbLgUHPg/iXH X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:a942:: with SMTP id hh2mr4379446ejb.253.1562343140095; Fri, 05 Jul 2019 09:12:20 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1562343140; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=moRhiwkawyaYALFXFgsljjkfy+BWTHDQ7bYSpkaitlqVtA/KrL/GXrCMMq4Gejr0YP 2hRafuJJaMXf2AN9iydzWhLPg5a7uKZnkoVYwoUCrpHb0I0qIOk5aMiobnfwJo4+fjPf dUh+9O+Dw3DDx11+KlHNMNtAseOHAR+dg4278Q2+8KDbkfJ5gfSHQq3K5oU66Y85VCEU ewCKQV/t3+GXMGU/YYHoOMZ7xE8LfFGdGZu1a3Cwu+MUQhAQcwEknREAMK8RO3kCo4Mu /hLAyAcJKC3znXPQNdkz3+3F9mn6VPZvMqntXBJ+nNcn0wqj2JgqNFIyDawtWPb/mSna MWEQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=user-agent:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-disposition:mime-version:references:mail-followup-to :message-id:subject:to:from:date; bh=LBF7vYD3Q3W/rlE/UT3QA9UwbVMPe4g5/LanAcjnrX4=; b=WHLUYff6uxzec4Y0pzHDSdvTtF6Evug6I0kgaBuIlEYgaxfO6RbnWrvepI1Rf7+EXF yRqsB1s0BoEtM5tDpOhf2+t8zjgiEWTzACtjPb/kgiIrkU8tcR/P3DdIS17PabUFYVA/ Pw1RsvUstn4+LwAhI6wXZL0v1i63uBEbxCgaDerNSxpDoRnOpAf6HXpoj2oMufyQlaR+ feNp93Vzgnp1k1BTbwCeJZ0jRiOqWZUwKFucqMOyFejU6V2JJZRJ+ye/avXYm2svRmrC JYjV/czAv0/UcvhWO76/pfuBUCiWgp8IkdoQQ+GYvWjM9eAsvg2nkiDOzitPdz7RflN5 CWkA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 85.214.156.166 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of ibr@radix50.net) smtp.mailfrom=ibr@radix50.net Return-Path: Received: from shymkent.ilbers.de (shymkent.ilbers.de. [85.214.156.166]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id h23si692032edb.2.2019.07.05.09.12.19 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Fri, 05 Jul 2019 09:12:20 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 85.214.156.166 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of ibr@radix50.net) client-ip=85.214.156.166; Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 85.214.156.166 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of ibr@radix50.net) smtp.mailfrom=ibr@radix50.net Received: from yssyq.m.ilbers.de (host-80-81-17-52.static.customer.m-online.net [80.81.17.52]) (authenticated bits=0) by shymkent.ilbers.de (8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-8) with ESMTPSA id x65GCIVL001139 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 18:12:19 +0200 Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2019 18:12:18 +0200 From: Baurzhan Ismagulov To: isar-users@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: multi MACHINE build for same DISTRO_ARCH Message-ID: <20190705161217.GA3977@yssyq.m.ilbers.de> Mail-Followup-To: isar-users@googlegroups.com References: <091c680c-8836-0efd-acbb-68d306ae5305@googlemail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-9 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <091c680c-8836-0efd-acbb-68d306ae5305@googlemail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on shymkent.ilbers.de X-TUID: 4xJtnWWhHGEt Hello Benedikt, On Mon, Jul 01, 2019 at 04:41:36PM +0200, 'Benedikt Niedermayr' via isar-users wrote: > bitbake multiconfig:imx6-stretch:isar-image-base \ > � � � � � �� multiconfig:imx7-stretch:isar-image-base \ > � � � � � �� multiconfig:imx8-stretch:isar-image-base > > The build runs fine if DISTRO_ARCH differs between targets. But it does not > run successfully if only MACHINE differs and DISTRO_ARCH is the same. Where does it fail? Which Isar revision? > I think running multi machine build within one bitbake build folder makes a > lot of sense, especially when it comes to build time and CI. Yes, we are interested in that use case. > Is anybody familiar with this behavior? We used to have issues with qemuarm-stretch and de0-nano-soc-stretch at least in cross-build, but it didn't occur in recent revisions (enabled in CI in 56cc472). With kind regards, Baurzhan.