Re: Another staging question

[Mark Hatle <mark.hatle@windriver.com>]

On 11/9/10 7:21 AM, Gary Thomas wrote:
> I've found another peculiarity with the new staging scheme(*).
> I have two target platforms, which for all intents and purposes
> are identical - both are Motorola MPC83xx (e300 core).  The only
> reason for two target machines is the kernel, plus platform specifics.
>
> I built totally from scratch (no SSTATE_MIRRORS) for target machine A.
> I then tested the staging by building in a new tree, again for machine A.
> This worked great - the build used mostly the staged packages.  About
> the only things that were rebuilt were the target specific packages.
>
> When I tried it for machine B, again in a totally empty directory, using
> the 'sstate-cache' directory of the first build as SSTATE_MIRRORS, all of
> the toolchain was rebuilt (GCC  and friends), but there was no need, the
> staged version should have been used.
>
> Is this expected?
> What could I do to fix it?

This tells me that the checksumming code found something that it believed 
changed the system behavior.  Likely a machine type or CFLAG or similar.

RP -- is there a way to determine "what changed [and why]" without re-running 
the build?  We found this invaluable when debugging the WR build system's 
checksumming, configuration files and packaging recipes.

--Mark

> Thanks
>
> (*) I'm very happy that the new staging is starting to work better.
> As is, it's a great leap forward;  I'm just hopeful that the remaining
> kinks can be worked out.  I'll be glad to help in this any way I can.
>