Re: Maintaining ABI Compatibility for LTS branch

Richard Purdie

On Wed, 2022-02-09 at 18:41 +0000, Richard Purdie wrote:

The BMW one is about hash equivalence so wouldn't help your ABI output problem
with the LTS. From what I remember, it predates hash equivalence and the project
needed a generic equivalance mechanism complete with server done at the runqueue
level in bitbake. This has now happened so we could revisit the idea of what is
in that layer but translating it to a hash equivalence plugin.

I'd also add that even with hash equivalence done well like we ended up with, we
have only two people interested/able to work on bugs with it, the author and
myself. For a key component of the system, this worries me a lot. Adding more
complexity without maintainer support isn't going to help anyone.
Sorry, I'm getting confused here with earlier work Michael Ho did at BMW. The
links here:

are the revised version from last year which *does* hook into hash equivalence.
I'm getting two things confused, sorry.

The nice thing about the layer above is that it is a standalone layer, we don't
have to merge it in order to use it. This shows the power of the new hash
equivalence code as it is a plugin to it. We may consider merging it at some
point but there is less of a pressing need and we need time to experiment with

At this point it is a proof of concept and doesn't solve the ABI problem you're
describing in the original email. Sorry about any confusion.

The abidw recipe could be useful to your ABI issue.



Join { to automatically receive all group messages.