Re: [PATCH 2/3] rm_work_and_downloads.bbclass: more aggressively minimize disk usage

[Patrick Ohly <patrick.ohly@intel.com>]

On Fri, 2017-01-06 at 10:31 -0800, Randy Witt wrote:

> 
> I'd rather see this be a new class independent from rm_work. People
> can always in inherit both rm_work and rm_download.

I'm not sure whether it's worth supporting that mode: what would be the
motivation for removing downloads, but not the work directory?

I'm a bit worried about unexpected breakages when using just
rm_download.

> That being said, since this doesn't operate at the fetch level, i.e.
> only remove things that were fetched as part of the current invocation
> of bitbake, I don't see why the user couldn't just "rm -rf downloads"
> themselves as part of the ci teardown.

The motivation for rm_work_and_downloads.bbclass is the same as for
rm_work.bbclass: reducing the required disk space *during* the build, to
get builds to succeed which otherwise would run out of disk space.

A "rm -rf downloads" at the end of the build doesn't help achieve that
goal.

-- 
Best Regards, Patrick Ohly

The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although
I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way
represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak
on behalf of Intel on this matter.