From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [130.89.2.8] (helo=smtp.utwente.nl) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1IXgiC-0001i1-0a for openembedded-devel@openembedded.org; Tue, 18 Sep 2007 19:18:12 +0200 Received: from Powerbook-2.local (dominion.kabel.utwente.nl [130.89.193.158]) by smtp.utwente.nl (8.12.10/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id l8IHELxW010928 for ; Tue, 18 Sep 2007 19:14:22 +0200 Message-ID: <46F0077F.3050807@student.utwente.nl> Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 19:14:39 +0200 From: Koen Kooi User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Macintosh/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.3 X-UTwente-MailScanner-Information: Scanned by MailScanner. Contact helpdesk@ITBE.utwente.nl for more information. X-UTwente-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-UTwente-MailScanner-From: k.kooi@student.utwente.nl X-Spam-Status: No Subject: Revisiting bitbake stamp handling X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 17:18:12 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, For a number of features in OE (e.g packaged-staging, rm_work) a change to bitbake stamp handling would make things a lot easier. As I understand it bitbake currently does for 'bitbake foo -c compile': if(dependency stamps are missing OR depency stamps have newer mtime) then start from scratch For rm_work we want to remove the do_unpack upto do_install stamps, but leave do_fetch and do_package_write* and for packaged-staging we want to only create a do_populate_staging stamps. So 'bitbake foo -c compile' would only do: if(depency stamps have newer mtime) then start from scratch this has implications for do_clean and do_rebuild, and possibly other things. Since this looks to good to be true, I want to know what else might break and how we could solve that when implementing this. This just a gedankenexperiment for now, so bitbake hackers can relax now :) regards, Koen -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin) iD8DBQFG8Ad/MkyGM64RGpERArW7AKCY91yVx8se1jUej3FiZyVRTpuZVgCghoca n9KyhcAJ4a4VhBvxh360wto= =152E -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----