From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix, from userid 118) id 33A9AE00A44; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 10:46:16 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on yocto-www.yoctoproject.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-HAM-Report: * 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider * (martin.jansa[at]gmail.com) * -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] * -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's * domain * 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily * valid * -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature * -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, low * trust * [209.85.212.179 listed in list.dnswl.org] Received: from mail-wi0-f179.google.com (mail-wi0-f179.google.com [209.85.212.179]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C233CE00960 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 10:46:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wiga1 with SMTP id a1so85543518wig.0 for ; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 10:46:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:date:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=LKYjktIGBfp6yDsphHLwrbsjEnE6rLeR1LMzU2meNQA=; b=KcBwvynBY1IH8Bxv0sia3N6YmglilNlYwNiVLG/SwB6++Edn26lLwmEUWi0spiLP3C FSompiGUXTFveTWxUQJfDq+fWbQ8VV7G1Y5AM4j5ShMNnoG4PsCIN+kQ54h2lJRKYVo4 qrYsXSdt/Vv4hXFVlpFFq1SwnO3/YYBXExBajizgiVpNBlRemsNN4J8IZuBrdXi9u4l/ KlRicvWetXzFxeqSUWgWMu6gRSW1K4bLQAo2FPjPWl/Le9Jb9Pf+/3+rDv22NFa8USSe +3NDmpLYJXAo9HsrlBhOMFHpqke7OadDdigN+FvFzsC2xXHEEnIgofwZNfb+vrcDBH60 iI6w== X-Received: by 10.180.106.195 with SMTP id gw3mr33892673wib.25.1434390369742; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 10:46:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (ip-86-49-34-37.net.upcbroadband.cz. [86.49.34.37]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ez19sm16912075wid.19.2015.06.15.10.46.09 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 15 Jun 2015 10:46:09 -0700 (PDT) From: Martin Jansa X-Google-Original-From: Martin Jansa Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 19:46:13 +0200 To: Gary Thomas Message-ID: <20150615174613.GD2398@jama> References: <557ED498.50406@mlbassoc.com> <20150615142110.GC2398@jama> <557F0E5B.90408@mlbassoc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <557F0E5B.90408@mlbassoc.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Cc: Yocto Project Subject: Re: sstate black hole? X-BeenThere: yocto@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of all things Yocto Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 17:46:16 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 11:41:47AM -0600, Gary Thomas wrote: > On 2015-06-15 08:21, Martin Jansa wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 07:35:20AM -0600, Gary Thomas wrote: > >> I'm working with i.MX6 targets (meta-fsl-arm*). For these > >> targets, some packages are "special" in that they use i.MX6 > >> specific graphics support. This ends up with an additional > >> layer of stratification, so my tmp/work tree has: > >> all-amltd-linux > >> cortexa9hf-vfp-neon-amltd-linux-gnueabi > >> cortexa9hf-vfp-neon-mx6qdl-amltd-linux-gnueabi > >> teton_p0382-amltd-linux-gnueabi > >> x86_64-amltd-linux-gnueabi > >> x86_64-linux > >> > >> The packages that are built in tmp/work/cortex* are architecture > >> specific, not target specific, hence my question: > >> > >> If I build for two i.MX6 targets, identical in every way > >> except for the ${MACHINE} name, if I use sstate to share > >> the builds from target A when building for target B, why > >> are the packages built in cortexa9hf-vfp-neon-mx6qdl-amltd-linux-g= nueabi > >> not shared by sstate? I can see that they are present in > >> the sstate cache, but they are always rebuilt for target B. > >> I consider this incorrect behaviour as these are the same > >> architecture and so they should be sharable via sstate. > >> > >> Am I missing something here? How can I determine why the > >> package from target A (sstate cache) is not usable by target B? > > > > Use openembedded-core/scripts/sstate-diff-machines.sh to check if the > > signatures of the recipes you expect to be re-used are the same. > > >=20 > How can I use this if the two targets have their own tmp/ tree? call it twice (once in each tmp tree) and compare resulting list.M files --=20 Martin 'JaMa' Jansa jabber: Martin.Jansa@gmail.com