From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from tim.rpsys.net (93-97-173-237.zone5.bethere.co.uk [93.97.173.237]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 342EDE00307 for ; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 08:28:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tim.rpsys.net (8.13.6/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q0DGS5cr023189; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 16:28:05 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 22915-03; Fri, 13 Jan 2012 16:28:00 +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 q0DGRt2X023181 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 13 Jan 2012 16:27:56 GMT Message-ID: <1326472079.15389.43.camel@ted> From: Richard Purdie To: McClintock Matthew-B29882 Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 16:27:59 +0000 In-Reply-To: References: <4F0EAE81.8030800@mlbassoc.com> <20120112131352.GC3452@jama.jama.net> <4F0EE095.1090709@mlbassoc.com> <20120112133749.GD3452@jama.jama.net> <4F0EFD47.1070708@mlbassoc.com> <4F0F1321.8080706@mlbassoc.com> <4F0F4B94.3020604@mlbassoc.com> <4F104C72.8010605@mlbassoc.com> X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.2- Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rpsys.net Cc: Chris Larson , Poky Project Subject: Re: sstate info 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: Fri, 13 Jan 2012 16:28:17 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri, 2012-01-13 at 15:40 +0000, McClintock Matthew-B29882 wrote: > On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Gary Thomas wrote: > >> > >> You can't just override DATE in local.conf? I don't see the point in > >> holding off, unless your builds will take till tomorrow to finish? > > > > > > Actually, I didn't think of that. I also didn't see this message > > until Friday (the next day) due to some network issues, so it's moot. > > > > That notwithstanding, I tried it today (new DATE) and it behaved as > > I would like. The only problem was that dbus-1 is still being rebuilt. > > I compared the siginfo files between the two builds and they are > > identical, so I don't know why. > > Are the hashes the same too? I've found the root cause of this problem and have posted a fix on the OE-Core mailing list. Cheers, Richard