From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [63.80.53.70] (helo=smtp-relay1.palm.com) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1K9NTO-0000aM-Fo for openembedded-devel@openembedded.org; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 18:58:58 +0200 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,673,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="5804556" Received: from unknown (HELO mailhost01.palm.com) ([148.92.223.30]) by smtp-relay1.palm.com with ESMTP; 19 Jun 2008 09:57:45 -0700 Received: from ako.local ([10.100.2.5]) by mailhost01.palm.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.10) with ESMTP id m5JGvhUr006021; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:57:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <485A9008.3030502@palm.com> Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:57:44 -0700 From: "K. Richard Pixley" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Macintosh/20080421) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "openembedded-devel@openembedded.org" References: <48598ECE.9030604@palm.com> <1213862302.5018.2.camel@dax.rpnet.com> In-Reply-To: <1213862302.5018.2.camel@dax.rpnet.com> Subject: Re: bitbake vs incremental builds X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.10 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: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 16:58:58 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Richard Purdie wrote: > It wasn't done for a long time simply because nobody had taken the time > to implement it. It has however recently been implemented, simply set: > > BB_STAMP_POLICY = "full" > or > BB_STAMP_POLICY = "whitelist" > > Whitelist allows you to exempt certain packages from stamp checking, see > packaged-staging.bbclass for an example. Thanks. I'm not seeing any references to BB_STAMP_POLICY in bitbake-1.8.10. Am I looking in the wrong place? --rich