[oe] RFC: Add http_proxy and ftp_proxy to BitBake white list
cliff.brake at gmail.com
Fri Nov 7 20:57:54 CET 2008
In Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 10:17 AM, Richard Purdie <rpurdie at rpsys.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-10-24 at 09:38 -0400, Cliff Brake wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 7:09 PM, Denys Dmytriyenko <denis at denix.org> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> > I'd like to propose to add http_proxy and ftp_proxy environment variables to
>> > BitBake's white list of preserved environment variables. They are usually set
>> > to be used by fetching tools like wget for users behind a firewall/proxy.
>> > Thanks.
>> In my latest tests, it does not seem like http_proxy is used by the bb
>> fetcher even when it is included in BB_ENV_EXTRAWHITE. Has anyone
>> else seen this?
> Yes, I've just added some extra support for this to the bitbake in Poky.
> I'll aim to get that (and some other changes) pushed upstream this
I've attempted to merge your patches and test, but the http_proxy is
still not preserved for wget. A few notes:
wget does not pass through runfetchcmd() so exportvars stuff never
gets called there.
try_mirror also has some http_proxy stuff, but it does not appear to
be used by wget.
wget.py looks at HTTP_PROXY, but why HTTP_PROXY vs http_proxy? If I
set HTTP_PROXY in local.conf, it then works.
So, is the idea the user has to set HTTP_PROXY in a conf file for wget
proxy to work? What are the downsides to using http_proxy from the
environment? At any rate, it seems like we have some inconsistencies
in the various fetcher methods.
More information about the Openembedded-devel