On Mon, 2021-10-04 at 18:59 +0100, Jose Quaresma wrote: > I understand the exception for the use cases but I think it would be useful > to show this to the users. Will it be more appropriate perhaps to log this as > debug messages?
The trouble is in the situations that is guarding against, the user cannot do anything about it so warnings definitely aren't appropriate and I'm not sure debug messages would be welcome either. Those would be less invasive though. > I have a final question that I don't understand clearly. > Can the omission of these timestamps updates on siginfo invalidate the use of > the sstate-cache for that task, > bitbake-dumpsig can complain about that? I think there is a misunderstanding here. The timestamps I've been talking about are part of reproducible builds and the SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH variable and code. These aim to make the output identical. If the output is identical, hash equivalence is more successful and the more successful hash equivalence is, the more sstate reuse you get. The timestamps in this part of the sstate code are simply there to handle sstate artefact aging (e.g. delete things which haven't been used in X weeks). The timestamp change is therefore "nice" but if it doesn't happen, it isn't a problem. Hope that helps clarify. Cheers, Richard
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#156630): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/156630 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/86052256/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
