Re: bitbake vs incremental builds

[Rich Pixley <rich.pixley@palm.com>]

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.
This isn't working for me simply by taking a top of tree bitbake and 
shoving it into my environment.  However, my OE environment is over a 
year old and is moderately hacked locally.

I tried to write a trivial test case, but I got bogged down.  It's not 
at all clear to me what one would need to do to use bitbake in some 
environment other than OE.  I was hoping it would be simple to just 
write an empty conf/bitbake.conf and a couple of a.bb and b.bb files 
with a depending on b, but 2hrs later I'm still confused.

So this isn't working for me and I don't see an easy way to debug it.  
Any suggestions?

--rich