Re: Cleaning up SDK/Toolchain

[Koen Kooi <k.kooi@student.utwente.nl>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Richard Purdie schreef:
> On Mon, 2007-10-22 at 17:34 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote:
>> Richard Purdie schreef:
>>> * Each machine could have its own staging area. To do that you'd have to
>>> make the populate staging stamp machine specific. That is possible
>>> although bitbake might require some tweaks and it would have
>>> implications for rm_work.
>> In essence it would make multimachine unimachine :(
> 
> Not necessarily. Only the populate_staging task would be machine
> specific, not the all the tasks.
> 
> With the staging changes I'm thinking of, do_populate_staging basically
> becomes a file copy. For the numbers of files we're talking about, it
> should be fast. rm_work would still work as long as it preserved the
> image directory under work...

So:

* rm_work deletes ${S} when used
* do_clean deletes ${WORKDIR} when used and kills stamps
* do_stage() copies files from ${WORKDIR}/image/ to staging/machine-tuple/

did I understand that correctly?

regards,

Koen



> 
>>> * We implement packaged staging and only stage the dependencies needed
>>> for each package.
>> That would be a better approach. Graeme, do you still want to have a
>> shot at implementing a unionfs based approach?
> 
> Hmm. Does that need root privs?
> 
> Richard
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
> 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFHH6w9MkyGM64RGpERAsPdAKCYsjAOTF+R5zmCnEjr7cqsodJiWQCfWhG7
ZUKW4Ca9hANBG+LC5j/ejJE=
=edFM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----