Re: [Ltib] package preconfig check confusion

[Stuart Hughes]

On 29/09/13 18:37, Stuart Hughes wrote:
> 
> 
> On 25/09/13 02:33, Mike Goins wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 9:14 PM, Mike Goins <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> I'm having a bit of an issue with understanding a bit of logic with
>>> preconfig and dir builds.
>>>
>>> A kernel is under dir build.
>>> Kernel preconfig gets updated through version control.
>>> ltib runs and outputs this:
>>>
>>> Processing: kernel-3.9.11-mpc8377
>>> ============================================
>>> Build path taken because: preconfig linux-3.9.11-mpc8377.config newer
>>> than rpm, directory build,
>>> checking if sources have been updated: no
>>> ...
>>> goes to rest of packages without building the kernel.
>>>
>>>
>>> It looks as if ltib detected that the preconfig is newer, but doesn't
>>> force the re-build of the package, like dir build takes precedence
>>> over preconfig.   I don't have PKG_KERNEL_FORCE selected, and thought
>>> it a bit heavy handed.  Shouldn't the newer preconfig auto-trigger a
>>> force rebuild?
>>>
>>> It does appear that setting PKG_KERNEL_FORCE, would do it, but this is
>>> such an expensive operation, when 99% of the time it is not needed
>>> (I'd rather not trigger the kernel build counter unless something
>>> actually changed).
>>
>>
>> Possibly answering my own question:
>>
>> Index: ltib
>> ===================================================================
>> RCS file: /sources/ltib/ltib/ltib,v
>> retrieving revision 1.89
>> diff -u -r1.89 ltib
>> --- ltib 20 Oct 2012 14:05:42 -0000 1.89
>> +++ ltib 25 Sep 2013 01:30:53 -0000
>> @@ -831,7 +831,7 @@
>>          # don't do this clause if running in short-circuited mode
>>          if( $unpack eq 'yes' )  {
>>              # commit to installing a new rpm (enforced if build fails)
>> -            unlink(@rpms) if $cf->{force} || $$key->{build} || $spec_upd;
>> +            unlink(@rpms) if $cf->{force} || $$key->{build} ||
>> $spec_upd || $preconfig_bld;
>>
>>              foreach my $url (  split(/\s*\n/, $tok->{sources}),
>>                                 split(/\s*\n/, $tok->{patches})   ) {
>>
> 
> Hi Mike,
> 
> I took a look at the code and tried out your patch.  It looks good to
> me, please check-in.
> 
> Regards, Stuart
> 
> 

Hi Mike,

Rather than let it get lost I checked in the above change.

Regards, Stuart