Will do. Thanks.

<devendra.tewari@...> wrote: If there are subtle issues which you don't yet understand then that's all the more reason for not hiding the new shutil.move code behind a test which will pass for

I did try that but got an error that does not happen when we try os.rename first. I'll try to reproduce it again. I suspect there may be subtle differences in os.rename vs shutil.move with respect to

<devendra.tewari@...> wrote: It would be better to use shutil.move unconditionally in all cases, rather than have a separate shutil.move code path which only gets tested by people doing

Thanks! My bad. The example I looked up in Python docs had a break and I just realized it was a looping example. Here’s the updated patch (or should I submit it again via git send-email?) From

All, The triage team is starting to try and collect up and classify bugs which a newcomer to the project would be able to work on in a way which means people can find them. They're being listed on

I was using master-next (version was right before I sent the email), and it still failed. Looking at things, there doesn't appear to be any METADATA_REVISION set in the normal build, but there is one

That break should definitely not be there, that changes behaviour. Same here... and again... and again...

First of all, thanks for helping reduce the CVE count! The above status/signoff should be in the patch file itself, rather than the commit message. For details see the "Patch name convention and

With this small patch, it's possible to overrule the public URL with a local mirror for those without Internet access. Signed-off-by: Jan Vermaete <jan.vermaete@...> ---

On 11:14-20210329, Bruce Ashfield wrote: [..] > > > > > > So we really have to pass this, when fundamentally it is the same > > > definition as what the defaults give us. > > > > > > What does that

This is very strange, never seen this test appear in the failure list. I looked at the more recent runs and don't see this failure reproduced. Anyways I went ahead and made sure at least it works on

Also, this is due to https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1430.

Sure. Would the following commit message be sufficient? Use shutil.move when os.rename fails Incremental build in Docker fails with OSError: [Errno 18] Invalid cross-device link

yeah I dropped it from meta-gnom now

Yes please quote a bit from the python manpage [1] - I certainly see the difference (and the edge cases where os.rename might fail), but that should be documented as part of the commit message [1]

Can you document the cases that os.rename() is failing ? And also why would we expect the shutil.move() to work in those cases ? If a change like this cases issues in the future, we need that

The subject still says [meta-oe] while the patch is for oe-core, that might be what mislead Khem.

--- meta/classes/sstate.bbclass | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++---- 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/meta/classes/sstate.bbclass b/meta/classes/sstate.bbclass index

That's what I figured. I was worried I was missing some sort of usecase. No harm in copying the existing pattern, I didn't introduce it either, so I wanted to make sure there wasn't something going