Re: TSC Meeting 2010/03/02

[Martin Jansa <martin.jansa@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 01:47:42PM +0000, Richard Purdie wrote:
> > I have considered converting some of the others to new staging.
> > Actually I even started it, but soon stopped with it for the following
> > reasons:
> > - the actual verification process is fairly cumbersome. (5) diff the 2
> > packaged-staging recipes (which I read as packaged-staging packages as
> > there are no packaged-staging recipes) is imho a pita)
> 
> It would be better to have some kind of automated way of doing this I
> agree. Its technically possible, just nobody has found the time needed
> to implement it. We're all volunteers as you point out.

Today while checking diff of pango and libxml I noticed that bumping
PR/INC_PR to target value before building it the old way helps a lot.

Even the binaries were a bit different when they were built from
different workdir because of PR (probably because of unstripped data in
workdir/image).

So now I first bump PR/INC_PR to target combination, then build without
BBCLASSEXTEND without rm_work inherit or -c build, backup workdir, make
BBCLASSEXTEND change, -c clean, -c build, and diff -rq workdir with
backuped version.

If it's different only in temp/run* temp/log* then it's great :). But
usually static libs are still a bit different but probably in harmless
way.

Regards,

-- 
uin:136542059                jid:Martin.Jansa@gmail.com
Jansa Martin                 sip:jamasip@voip.wengo.fr 
JaMa