Re: Packaged Staging - 'Current' Status

[Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.kabel.utwente.nl>]

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

Richard Purdie schreef:
| As has been mentioned, I'm working on integrating packaged staging and
| its about time I mentioned the current status. I say 'current' as it
| applies to what I have offline, not what's in OE.dev.

I have a few questions that I can't deduce an answer to from your
description:

~ * How does packaged-staging handle switching ANGSTROM_MODE?

If the packaged-staging-packages (p-s-ps) get seperated by target tuple
it should be ok, and if the p-s-ps dir can be overriden (e.g.
PS_STAGING_DIR = foo/bar/${ANGSTROM_MODE}) we should be safe as well.

~ * do we have 'one' staging dir as we have now, or can each package have
its own staging dir built from its DEPENDS?

I know that this largely depends on how fast/well we debug sysroot
stuff, but I'm curious how this is in your current design.

~ * will p-s.bbclass be package format agnostic, or are we going to
insist on opkg?

I know from experience that making it format agnostic isn't hard, only
tedious, but most of all subject to combinatorial explosion for
unit-testing. It also doesn't really matter, since p-s-ps are orthogonal
to the ones in deploy, but I can image OE-newbies freaking out over this.

regards,

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

iD8DBQFH2aVoMkyGM64RGpERAor2AKC2XM/v+c6hQFsZTZdv5F2dtMRFawCgpgAD
ZT5JM2KOiqUyTLNY3A6n4Io=
=T4cR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----