Bug 14558 - package_ipk.bbclass: Signing fails with external-arm-toolchain.bb
Summary: package_ipk.bbclass: Signing fails with external-arm-toolchain.bb
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: OE-Core
Classification: Build System, Metadata & Runtime
Component: core (show other bugs)
Version: 3.1.14
Hardware: Other arm64
: Medium+ normal
Target Milestone: 3.4 M4
Assignee: Mickaël Laventure
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2021-09-22 15:23 UTC by Mickaël Laventure
Modified: 2021-10-26 14:24 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:
OS type for building Yocto: ---
Type of Regression: ---
Verified:
Documentation change: No (bug/feature does not impact docs)

Attachments
Potential fix for this bug (1.56 KB, patch)
2021-09-22 15:23 UTC, Mickaël Laventure 		no flags Details | Diff
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Mickaël Laventure 2021-09-22 15:23:03 UTC 
Created attachment 4830 [details]
Potential fix for this bug

Preconditions/Environment
-------------------------
poky/meta-oe: dunfell

meta-arm/meta-arm-toolchain (c4f04f3fb66f8f4365b08b553af8206372e90a63): Using aarch64 9.2-2019.12 as external toolchain

PACKAGE_CLASSES = "package_ipk" 

Triggering Action/Cause
-----------------------
Enable IPK GPG signing for both packages and feed

Expectation
-----------
Build should succeed

Actual Result
-------------
Build fails due to trying to sign a non existent file:
  <build-dir>/work/aarch64-poky-linux/external-arm-toolchain/2019.12-r0/deploy-ipks/aarch64/libgcc-s1_2.30-r0_aarch64.ipk: no such file or directory

The actual libgcc-s1 package version should be 9.2.1-r0

Reproducibility
---------------
1/1

Root Cause
---------------
This is due to the sign portion of the code using the original data source `d` instead of `localdata`. Within `localdata`, the function updates the `OVERRIDES` variable to include the target package which then allow the `PKGV_xxx` variables to correctly be evaluated.

I've attached the patch I am currently using with this report, I'll try to contribute it later this week if I have the time.
Comment 1 Ross Burton 2021-09-23 14:50:01 UTC 
Yes, that patch looks right.  Please do post it to the list.
Comment 2 Mickaël Laventure 2021-10-25 22:52:25 UTC 
Patch was merged