From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.doredevelopment.dk (unknown [77.233.226.4]) by mx1.pokylinux.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34FAF4C80578; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 02:48:26 -0500 (CDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.doredevelopment.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B3614094; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 09:48:26 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at dev.doredevelopment.dk Received: from mail.doredevelopment.dk ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (public.doredevelopment.dk [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KLvSpJXbsP8o; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 09:48:24 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.1.189] (0x55532124.adsl.cybercity.dk [85.83.33.36]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: eha) by mail.doredevelopment.dk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 482062F66; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 09:48:22 +0200 (CEST) From: Esben Haabendal To: Richard Purdie In-Reply-To: <1300408987.30423.2172.camel@rex> References: <1300408987.30423.2172.camel@rex> Organization: DoreDevelopment ApS Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 09:48:13 +0200 Message-ID: <1303717693.964.10.camel@eha> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.3 Cc: yocto , poky Subject: Re: Shared State - What does it mean and why should I care? X-BeenThere: poky@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Poky build system developer discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 07:48:28 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri, 2011-03-18 at 00:43 +0000, Richard Purdie wrote: > As a real world example, the aim is when building an ipk based image, > only the do_package_write_ipk tasks would have their sstate packages > fetched and extracted. Since the sysroot isn't used, it would never get > extracted. This is another reason to prefer the task based approach > sstate takes over any recipe based approach which would have to install > the output from every task. In case anyone cares, the "per-recipe based staging" used in OE-lite, and proposed as a future design concept for OE-core (although clearly not going to be used in OE-core anytime soon) is also task based in the above context, and has the same advantage as described for sstate above. I just wanted to make the point as the "any recipe based approach" could easily give casual readers the assumption that this was a weak point in my proposal. /Esben From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.doredevelopment.dk (unknown [77.233.226.4]) by mx1.pokylinux.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34FAF4C80578; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 02:48:26 -0500 (CDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.doredevelopment.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B3614094; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 09:48:26 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at dev.doredevelopment.dk Received: from mail.doredevelopment.dk ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (public.doredevelopment.dk [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KLvSpJXbsP8o; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 09:48:24 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.1.189] (0x55532124.adsl.cybercity.dk [85.83.33.36]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: eha) by mail.doredevelopment.dk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 482062F66; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 09:48:22 +0200 (CEST) From: Esben Haabendal To: Richard Purdie In-Reply-To: <1300408987.30423.2172.camel@rex> References: <1300408987.30423.2172.camel@rex> Organization: DoreDevelopment ApS Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 09:48:13 +0200 Message-ID: <1303717693.964.10.camel@eha> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.3 Cc: yocto , poky Subject: Re: [poky] Shared State - What does it mean and why should I care? X-BeenThere: yocto@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of all things Yocto List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 07:48:28 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri, 2011-03-18 at 00:43 +0000, Richard Purdie wrote: > As a real world example, the aim is when building an ipk based image, > only the do_package_write_ipk tasks would have their sstate packages > fetched and extracted. Since the sysroot isn't used, it would never get > extracted. This is another reason to prefer the task based approach > sstate takes over any recipe based approach which would have to install > the output from every task. In case anyone cares, the "per-recipe based staging" used in OE-lite, and proposed as a future design concept for OE-core (although clearly not going to be used in OE-core anytime soon) is also task based in the above context, and has the same advantage as described for sstate above. I just wanted to make the point as the "any recipe based approach" could easily give casual readers the assumption that this was a weak point in my proposal. /Esben