From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [64.28.152.243] (helo=smtp-relay2.palm.com) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KBdVr-0005N4-W8 for openembedded-devel@openembedded.org; Thu, 26 Jun 2008 00:30:52 +0200 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.27,704,1204531200"; d="scan'208";a="10457610" Received: from unknown (HELO mailhost01.palm.com) ([148.92.223.30]) by smtp-relay2.palm.com with ESMTP; 25 Jun 2008 15:28:39 -0700 Received: from nara.local ([10.100.2.4]) by mailhost01.palm.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.10) with ESMTP id m5PMScxr017166; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 15:28:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4862C697.1010500@palm.com> Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 15:28:39 -0700 From: Rich 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: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 22:30:52 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Looks like I got something wrong or got confused by the stamps earlier. I am seeing top-of-tree org.embedded.stable build more things after changes with BB_STAMP_POLICY = "full" than it was previously. I'm also seeing that behavior in our environment now, although I'm not convinced we're doing all that people expect yet. I'm planning to switch us over tomorrow morning. We'll whether anything hits the fan then. For this to be accurate, we need to eliminate all cases of "NOSTAMP", don't we? Isn't the only reason to use NOSTAMP to force something to be redone every pass? --rich