From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [80.91.229.2] (helo=ciao.gmane.org) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MGzIR-0007n4-D5 for openembedded-devel@openembedded.org; Wed, 17 Jun 2009 19:51:39 +0200 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1MGz8J-0007Dk-PH for openembedded-devel@openembedded.org; Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:41:11 +0000 Received: from p17194-ipngn801marunouchi.tokyo.ocn.ne.jp ([114.162.172.194]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:41:11 +0000 Received: from no2spam by p17194-ipngn801marunouchi.tokyo.ocn.ne.jp with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:41:11 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: openembedded-devel@openembedded.org From: Rolf Leggewie Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 02:40:58 +0900 Message-ID: References: <1245258640-1623-1-git-send-email-clarson@mvista.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: p17194-ipngn801marunouchi.tokyo.ocn.ne.jp User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090409) In-Reply-To: <1245258640-1623-1-git-send-email-clarson@mvista.com> Sender: news Subject: Re: [PATCH] image.bbclass: remove tmp/rootfs after image creation unless you set a variable X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 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, 17 Jun 2009 17:51:39 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Chris Larson wrote: > Set IMAGE_KEEPROOTFS to something other than the empty string to keep > tmp/rootfs around after image creation, otherwise it will be removed We had something like this proposed a while ago by I think Lynn Lin. This is already a bit more evolved since it is conditional on a variable. The proposal then was rejected on the grounds of breaking concurrent builds and I think this will likely be the case here, too. comments?