Re: [RFC] Initial Proposal for Packaged Staging Revamp (was [RFC] Make some big changes right after next stable)

[Richard Purdie <rpurdie@rpsys.net>]

On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 18:17 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote:
> On 03-03-10 18:09, Chris Larson wrote:
> > To summarize, I propose the creation of an archive/package which acts as the
> > primary artifact to come out of the build of a recipe. 
> 
> That sounds like a good way to do packaged-staging without making my
> head explode :)

This is mainly due to the constraints that were placed upon its
development. If we can relax some of the constraints, we can make it
simpler.

> I think the 'private staging' approach is the way to go, it makes the
> build determistic instead of "might pick up extras from staging". And I
> think it will also cure the mysterious "every python recipe breaks when
> some, yet unknown, recipe is built"

Yes, private staging areas are something we need and I don't think
anyone believes otherwise. This isn't something either proposal is
offering directly. Its only something that it will be possible to
develop more easily once we have staging packages working well.

Cheers,

Richard