Re: sstate status

[Richard Purdie <rpurdie@linux.intel.com>]

Hi Paul,

On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 16:06 +0000, Paul Eggleton wrote:
> On Friday 03 December 2010 22:11:45 Richard Purdie wrote:
> > I notice a number of patches in your branches which shouldn't be needed
> > if we use the two patches at the head of: 
> > 
> > http://git.pokylinux.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/log/?h=rpurdie/tweaks2
> > 
> > Could you please test using those two changes, or let me know if those
> > changes cause problems.
> 
> I just tested with your branch; it definitely obviates the need to
> exclude large amounts of variables, however BB_TASKHASH is still being
> included in the hash and this causes many mismatches.

Agreed, I'll take that patch on its own, I just want to move carefully
to the end result.

Can you rebase your sstate branch onto master, pull in the above changes
not already in master and lets see where we are?

Cheers,

Richard