From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from 93-97-173-237.zone5.bethere.co.uk ([93.97.173.237] helo=tim.rpsys.net) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NnCoo-00077E-QL for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Thu, 04 Mar 2010 16:18:32 +0100 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tim.rpsys.net (8.13.6/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o24FFbnQ032365 for ; Thu, 4 Mar 2010 15:15:37 GMT Received: from tim.rpsys.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (tim.rpsys.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 32221-02-2 for ; Thu, 4 Mar 2010 15:15:18 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [192.168.3.10] ([192.168.3.10]) (authenticated bits=0) by tim.rpsys.net (8.13.6/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o24FAiNh032127 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 4 Mar 2010 15:10:45 GMT From: Richard Purdie To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 10:15:02 +0000 Message-ID: <1267697702.2259.243.camel@rex> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.3 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rpsys.net X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 93.97.173.237 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: rpurdie@rpsys.net X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on discovery X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, DATE_IN_PAST_03_06, RDNS_DYNAMIC, TVD_RCVD_IP autolearn=no version=3.2.5 X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:20:07 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on linuxtogo.org) Subject: Re: [RFC] Initial Proposal for Packaged Staging Revamp (was [RFC] Make some big changes right after next stable) X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 15:18:32 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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