On Tue, 2023-04-11 at 17:27 +0200, Frédéric Martinsons wrote: > Hello with the patch below: > > --- a/meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/cases/reproducible.py > +++ b/meta/lib/oeqa/selftest/cases/reproducible.py > @@ -134,9 +134,9 @@ class ReproducibleTests(OESelftestTestCase): > max_report_size = 250 * 1024 * 1024 > > # targets are the things we want to test the reproducibility of > - targets = ['core-image-minimal', 'core-image-sato', 'core-image- > full-cmdline', 'core-image-weston', 'world'] > + targets = ['zvariant'] > # sstate targets are things to pull from sstate to potentially > cut build/debugging time > - sstate_targets = [] > + sstate_targets = ['rust-native', 'cargo-native'] > save_results = False > if 'OEQA_DEBUGGING_SAVED_OUTPUT' in os.environ: > save_results = os.environ['OEQA_DEBUGGING_SAVED_OUTPUT'] > > I managed to reduce the time to test to 30mn (which is reasonable). > Today, I made 5 run of this > reproducibility test and if library is indeed different between build > A and build B every time, this > is the same exact difference, that is to day that the 5 libraries in > build A are identical and so are > the 5 libraries in build B. > > I admit I'm surprised , I would have waited for some random diff. > I'll continue my investigation but if this rang a bell to someone > here, feel free to tell (this does > seem strange to me).
It likely means it is the path the build is made in that is being encoded into the build somehow. The same binary is resulting for a given build path? Cheers, Richard
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#179934): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/179934 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/98126404/21656 Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
