[yocto] openjdk build fails due to checksum mismatches from icedtea-native

[Khem Raj]

On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Randy Mortensen <randy.mort at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Oct 6, 2016, at 8:35 PM, Khem Raj <raj.khem at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Oct 6, 2016, at 7:07 PM, Randy Mortensen <randy.mort at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Oct 5, 2016, at 7:14 PM, Darcy Watkins <dwatkins at sierrawireless.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Oct 5, 2016, at 4:52 PM, Khem Raj <raj.khem at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Oct 5, 2016, at 4:45 PM, Randy Mortensen <randym at stratagemsystems.com>
> wrote:
>
> On Oct 5, 2016, at 5:04 PM, Darcy Watkins <dwatkins at sierrawireless.com>
> wrote:
>
> From what I gleaned from recent discussions of fetcher errors, this is
> somehow connected with rollout of Python related security fixes to various
> Linux distributions and/or some ...-native recipes.
>
> It was a bunch of tar balls that are named as mercurial hashes from within
> iced tea rather than the yocto fetch. I worked around it by grabbing the
> tarballs from a different checkout since I didn't have time to dig into it.
>
> It affected a fresh checkout I was building from scratch.
>
> Thanks for the response. This also happened to me when trying to build from
> scratch.
> For my clarification, did you already have the tar balls downloaded or were
> you able to download them from a previous (icedtea) commit somehow?
>
>
> I had the tar balls in a different build that I had around for some time.
> The reason I never cached these ones in a shared location on our server was
> I felt that tar balls with small hashes as filenames was too prone to
> collisions, especially without a package name as a prefix.  I don't know if
> that is a convention of iced tea, or how the fetcher handles mercurial.
>
> Can you check if the tarballs have been rebuilt upstream ? if so we should
> try to find out what changed.
> It could also be an oversight that a recipe update forgot or updated the
> checksums wrongly. but we should try to root cause it
>
>
> I agree here.  We should root cause it.
>
>
> I’m not sure how this is all supposed to work, but I managed to get past the
> fetch failures by changing the md5sum and sha256sum checksums in
> icedtea7-native_2.1.3.bb.
> I used the the checksums helpfully suggested by bitbake when it reported the
> errors.
>
> I compared one of the problematic tar balls with a “good” one from a
> previous download and the only change I could identify was 3 extra lines
> added to a hidden file .hgtag  (which I presume maps a tag to a commit). Not
> sure why requesting the same hg commit results in a different tarball
> output.
>
>
> could it be that its generating the tarballs from mercurial directly and
> thats flawed somehow ?
>
> That seems likely but I don’t know how to fix that.
>
> I also don’t understand why the configure task fails after the fetch task
> successfully downloads the tarballs.
>
>
>
> Now however iced tea fails to configure due to checksum errors. The
> configure task seems to re-download each tarball and check the sha256sum
> which is failing.
>

I wonder if this failure will still happen again when it rebuilds the
tarball internally. I have
a hunch that might happen again

> I’m not sure where to go from here to try and resolve so any more help is
> welcome.
>
>