Bug 1169 - eglibc doesn't depend on gcc version correctly
Summary: eglibc doesn't depend on gcc version correctly
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: OE-Core
Classification: Build System, Metadata & Runtime
Component: core (show other bugs)
Version: 0.9
Hardware: x86 Multiple
: Medium normal
Target Milestone: 1.2
Assignee: Robert Yang
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard: post 1.1
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2011-06-15 18:46 UTC by Robert Yang
Modified: 2011-12-20 18:04 UTC (History)
7 users (show)

See Also:
OS type for building Yocto: ---
Type of Regression: ---
Verified:
Documentation change: ---


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Robert Yang 2011-06-15 18:46:02 UTC
Steps to reproduce:

1) bitbake meta-toolchain with gcc 4.6.0
2) bitbake meta-toolchain with gcc 4.5.1 in another project.

If project 1 and 2 use the shared sstage-cache, then the build would fail:

| Processing task-core-standalone-sdk-target-dbg...
| error: Failed dependencies:
|       libgcc1 >= 4.6.0 is needed by eglibc-utils-2.13-r1+svnr14157.armv5te
| error: LOOP:
| error: removing libgcc-s-dev-4.5.1-r0.armv5te "Requires(hint): libc6-dev" from tsort relations.
| error: removing libc6-dev-2.13-r1+svnr14157.armv5te "Requires(hint): libgcc-s-dev" from tsort relations.

Workarounds:

Remove sstate-elibc-* in sstate-cache
Comment 1 Jessica 2011-12-20 11:36:23 UTC
please provide some update on the bug since it's been a while from the last activity
Comment 2 Robert Yang 2011-12-20 18:04:28 UTC
Here was the information from Richard:

The sstate checksum of the sstate-eglibc-xxx_package.tgz package should
have changed when the gcc version changed, such that it would repackage
(based on updated data). I think the problem is that in the sstate code,
we've assumed the toolchain is special and can change:

BB_HASHTASK_WHITELIST ?= "(.*-cross$|.*-native$|.*-cross-initial$|.*-cross-intermediate$|^virtual:native:.*|^virtual:nativesdk:.*)"

and this may be a sign we should reconsider this. Alternatively we could
hiighlight we simply don't support gcc version going backwards

I think that we can mark it as WONTFIX