public inbox for isar-users@googlegroups.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: <Venkata.Pyla@toshiba-tsip.com>
To: <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>, <isar-users@googlegroups.com>
Cc: <felix.moessbauer@siemens.com>, <roberto.foglietta@gmail.com>,
	<henning.schild@siemens.com>, <kazuhiro3.hayashi@toshiba.co.jp>,
	<dinesh.kumar@toshiba-tsip.com>
Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH] image.bbclass: create separate task for creating reproducible image
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2023 12:51:24 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <OSYPR01MB5542BB0CFB1C69F834E3D2ADA4AF9@OSYPR01MB5542.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8562773b-e169-ca0f-054c-66e39ab26d28@siemens.com>



>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
>Sent: 27 February 2023 15:33
>To: pyla venkata(TSIP TMIEC ODG Porting) <Venkata.Pyla@toshiba-
>tsip.com>; isar-users@googlegroups.com
>Cc: felix.moessbauer@siemens.com; roberto.foglietta@gmail.com;
>henning.schild@siemens.com; hayashi kazuhiro(林 和宏 □SWC◯ACT)
><kazuhiro3.hayashi@toshiba.co.jp>; dinesh kumar(TSIP TMIEC ODG
>Porting) <dinesh.kumar@toshiba-tsip.com>
>Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] image.bbclass: create separate task for creating
>reproducible image
>
>On 27.02.23 10:57, Venkata.Pyla@toshiba-tsip.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>
>>> Sent: 27 February 2023 14:28
>>> To: pyla venkata(TSIP TMIEC ODG Porting) <Venkata.Pyla@toshiba-
>>> tsip.com>; isar-users@googlegroups.com
>>> Cc: felix.moessbauer@siemens.com; roberto.foglietta@gmail.com;
>>> henning.schild@siemens.com; hayashi kazuhiro(林 和宏 □SWC◯ACT)
>>> <kazuhiro3.hayashi@toshiba.co.jp>; dinesh kumar(TSIP TMIEC ODG
>>> Porting) <dinesh.kumar@toshiba-tsip.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] image.bbclass: create separate task for
>>> creating reproducible image
>>>
>>> On 27.02.23 08:50, venkata.pyla@toshiba-tsip.com wrote:
>>>> From: venkata pyla <venkata.pyla@toshiba-tsip.com>
>>>>
>>>> Currently the reproducible fix for setting same file timestamps
>>>> across builds is present in the function `do_rootfs_finalize` and
>>>> this fix may be skipped for the tasks that are added after this task
>>>> or `do_rootfs`  for e.g. in one of the child project(CIP) for
>>>> swupdate target it adds  additional task `do_generate_image_uuid`
>>>> that is added after `do_rootfs`  this task is updating some contents
>>>> in the rootfs which is skipping the  reproducible fix was applied in
>`do_rootfs_finalize`.
>>>>
>>>> For this reason a separate task `do_image_make_reproducible` is
>>>> created which should call before the final target image is created
>>>> [tar, wic, squashfs] so that it applies reproducible fixes just
>>>> before image creation.
>>>>
>>>> RFC:
>>>> In this patch I tried below dependency[1] for the function to solve
>>>> the above problem, it works now but I am not sure whether it
>>>> guarantee always this task `do_image_make_reproducible` will run
>>>> just before `do_image_[tar,wic,squashfs]` tasks or does it need more
>>>> changes to make it guarantee, any suggestions?
>>>>
>>>> [1] addtask image_make_reprodcible after do_rootfs before do_image
>>>>
>>>
>>> Isn't it possible to adjust isar-cip-core to perform
>>> do_generate_image_uuid before do_rootfs_finalize? Didn't check all details
>yet, just wondering.
>>>
>>
>> Yeah that should be possible by changing its dependencies order, but I
>> just tried if it can be fixed in base recipes to address this problem commonly.
>
>Well, the question is if the rather imprecise ordering in downstream isn't the
>actual issue. Or do you see other values in factoring this thing here out into an
>own task?

Fixing this ordering problem is main goal for adding this new task, other is we can extend in future to add any other reproducible fixes in to the same new task.

The main reason for creating this new task is to set this task run just before the image creation (not sure how to guarantee it in bitbake or it is already using before and after clauses)
So that in any such cases like `do_generate_image_uuid ` task which is created after do_rootfs and skiping the reproducible fix should not happen with other task.

Do you think creating new task is not required here and fixing the imprecise ordering in downstream or with any other task is suffice?

>
>Jan
>
>--
>Siemens AG, Technology
>Competence Center Embedded Linux

  reply	other threads:[~2023-02-27 12:51 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-02-27  7:50 venkata.pyla
2023-02-27  8:57 ` Jan Kiszka
2023-02-27  9:57   ` Venkata.Pyla
2023-02-27 10:03     ` Jan Kiszka
2023-02-27 12:51       ` Venkata.Pyla [this message]
2023-02-27 20:43 ` Henning Schild

Reply instructions:

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:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=OSYPR01MB5542BB0CFB1C69F834E3D2ADA4AF9@OSYPR01MB5542.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com \
    --to=venkata.pyla@toshiba-tsip.com \
    --cc=dinesh.kumar@toshiba-tsip.com \
    --cc=felix.moessbauer@siemens.com \
    --cc=henning.schild@siemens.com \
    --cc=isar-users@googlegroups.com \
    --cc=jan.kiszka@siemens.com \
    --cc=kazuhiro3.hayashi@toshiba.co.jp \
    --cc=roberto.foglietta@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* 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