Re: TSC meeting minutes 20100204

[Koen Kooi <k.kooi@student.utwente.nl>]

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

On 08-02-10 14:25, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
> 2010/2/7 Koen Kooi <k.kooi@student.utwente.nl>:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 07-02-10 17:21, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
>>
>>> The last two items discussed were new-style staging and packaged
>>> staging. The TSC would like to *strongly* encourage people to move their
>>> recipes to new style staging. If you are using packaged-staging with a
>>> big TMPDIR (e.g. a few machines with big images built) legacy staging
>>> will easily take more than 15 minutes per recipe because it scans
>>> through the complete staging looking for changes.
>>>
>>>> Maybe I missed a thing, but can someone provide a pointer to how a
>>>> good recipe with new style staging  should look like?
>>>> I'll happily modify the recipes I touch regularly, but don't exactly
>>>> know what to do.
>>
>> New-style staging means it has no do_stage method defined anymore (and
>> not getting one thru things like autotools_stage.bbclass as well).
>> It will re-use the output of do_install() to populate staging and run QA
>> checks on.
>>
>> You can check it building it and and looking for messages like "Legacy
>> staging enabled", which would tell you it's still using the old, slow
>> method.
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> Koen
> 
> Did a quick grep, there are still some 1400+ recipes that have a
> do_stage. Now some of them are older versions (e.g. there are 6
> xorg-lib/pixman recipes).
> I'm more than happy to do my part of the cleaning but....
> Almost most of the packages are things I don't know too much about.
> What I can do (with packaged staging) remove do_stage, build, build a
> package that depends on it and if that builds commit my work. Is that
> considered to be good enough?

You can compare the contents of the packaged-staging packages to see
differences between then. That's what I do as a first check. Building
something against it is the second check :)

regards,

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

iD8DBQFLcBQhMkyGM64RGpERAot+AJ0fcQaGsHWHk107ChvoVnSO2saQ3wCeMZ/O
/jHZMEcEaVKXoqMRPa/Jg0U=
=V1gH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----