yocto@lists.yoctoproject.org

Re: Y2038 proposal

I just ran these tests in (32 bit) qemux86 on top of poky master (e.g. no magic glibc flags), and they all passed. Do they need to be ran after setting the date to the 'post-2038 future' to reveal the

By Alexander Kanavin · #58686 ·

Re: [OE-core] OpenEmbedded Happy Hour November 30

Well, historically we used to have the OpenEmbedded Happy Hour after the sessions on the second day of the Yocto Project Summit and ask people to re-join a different Zoom room to socialize. This

By Denys Dmytriyenko · #58685 ·

Re: [OE-core] [Openembedded-architecture] Y2038 proposal

That sounds interesting and something we should probably look into for both issues... That would cause runtime issues but not build time linking ones? Cheers, Richard

By Richard Purdie · #58684 ·

Re: [OE-core] [Openembedded-architecture] Y2038 proposal

We can simply disable COMPAT_32BIT_TIME in the kernel config. -- Alexandre Belloni, co-owner and COO, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com

By Alexandre Belloni · #58683 ·

Re: [OE-core] [Openembedded-architecture] Y2038 proposal

Some time ago I filed https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6803 as Debian has a nice sanity check where it warns if non-LFS glibc functions are used. I imagine the same logic could be

By Ross Burton · #58682 ·

Re: [Openembedded-architecture] Y2038 proposal

<alex.kanavin@...> wrote: I have something like this on yoe/mut branch on contrib repo ( due to musl removing the LFS hacks). However there are packages which need to be fixed at build

By Khem Raj · #58681 ·

Add user to group that's created in other recipe

Hi, I have intermittent problems with a recipe that creates a user that is member of groups that are created by a different recipe. This is the recipe that creates the groups: # recipe-a.bb inherit

By Sven · #58680 ·

Re: [OE-core] [Openembedded-architecture] Y2038 proposal

Perhaps, yes. I'm meaning disabling the 32 bit glibc time functions. Right, but the 32 bit time functions/symbols are still available for older binaries. My point is that anything using those older

By Richard Purdie · #58679 ·

Re: [OE-core] [Openembedded-architecture] Y2038 proposal

Hi Richard, Y2038 ptests maybe? Here is the list of integrated tests to ptests: https://github.com/lmajewski/y2038-tests Could you be more specific here? Would you like to disable

By ?ukasz Majewski · #58678 ·

Re: [Openembedded-architecture] Y2038 proposal

Others have made some good comments. My thoughts: * We need to add some runtime tests to oeqa for this (in addition to the ptests) * We need to have a 32 bit ptest run on the autobuilder (qemux86

By Richard Purdie · #58677 ·

Re: How to enabled systemd unit files automatically using recipe?

I have a question here: If I something like below in my recipe SYSTEMD_SERVICE:${PN} = "${@bb.utils.contains('DISTRO_FEATURES', 'systemd', 'one.service', '', d)}" Then, can I add multiple files

By Sourabh Hegde · #58676 ·

Re: [OE-core] [yocto] Y2038 proposal

For x86, yes. For arm, it varies and I know at least one of our arm hosts doesn't support it, I don't know about the newer ones. In general I think it shouldn't be too bad but we really do need

By Richard Purdie · #58675 ·

Re: [OE-core] [yocto] Y2038 proposal

"Alexander Kanavin" <alex.kanavin@...> wrote: +1 IIRC the MACH=qemux86 was working correctly... Maybe only subset of ptests - i.e. those related to Y2038 could be run? Best regards, Lukasz

By ?ukasz Majewski · #58674 ·

Re: Y2038 proposal

Testing the rollover could be done in later stages. I can imagine we'll have enough just by setting the date in the future and getting those magic glibc flags to not cause build fails. Alex

By Alexander Kanavin · #58673 ·

Re: [OE-core] [yocto] Y2038 proposal

<richard.purdie@...> wrote: I think kvm does allow 32 bit guest on a 64 bit host. But I can imagine making full ptests work on 32 bit guests would be a struggle for reasons unrelated

By Alexander Kanavin · #58672 ·

Re: [OE-core] [yocto] Y2038 proposal

lists.openembedded.org wrote: What is the potential issue with builtools? To be clear, we don't run ptests on 32 bit targets, only on qemux86-64 and qemuarm64 where we have KVM available. We do run

By Richard Purdie · #58671 ·

Re: Y2038 proposal

"Stephen John Smoogen" <smooge@...> wrote: IIRC ptests for y2038 covers this problem in this exact way. Best regards, Lukasz Majewski -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, Managing

By ?ukasz Majewski · #58670 ·

Re: Y2038 proposal

I ran a-full with "-D_TIME_BITS=64 -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64" last week, it didn't go too well gcc-sanitizer and pulseaudio being the main offenders but buildtools needs to be investigated. The main

By Alexandre Belloni · #58669 ·

Re: Y2038 proposal

Going from various problems I saw with systems with smaller time wraps, setting a time after wrap occurs misses most of the problems which wall occur. Many systems will work fine with either

By Stephen John Smoogen · #58668 ·

Re: Y2038 proposal

Little by little. As long as we have a well-defined test plan, a well-known list of issues, and follow a strict 'upstream first' policy in addressing them (e.g. no fixes in layers that are

By Alexander Kanavin · #58667 ·

Messages