From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from giant.haxx.se ([80.67.6.50])
	by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <bjst@giant.haxx.se>) id 1Sh4Xn-0007Da-2H
	for bitbake-devel@lists.openembedded.org;
	Tue, 19 Jun 2012 21:56:55 +0200
Received: from giant.haxx.se (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by giant.haxx.se (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-2) with ESMTP id q5JJZdPh005175
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT);
	Tue, 19 Jun 2012 21:35:39 +0200
Received: (from bjst@localhost)
	by giant.haxx.se (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id q5JJZdEn005174;
	Tue, 19 Jun 2012 21:35:39 +0200
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 21:35:39 +0200
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Bj=F6rn?= Stenberg <bjst@enea.com>
To: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
Message-ID: <20120619193539.GA2530@giant>
References: <cover.1340034255.git.paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
	<dcf1fb0acb4bd3424cbb5f48cd62f4f994896c20.1340034255.git.paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <dcf1fb0acb4bd3424cbb5f48cd62f4f994896c20.1340034255.git.paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by giant.haxx.se id
	q5JJZdPh005175
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 10:38:14 +0200
Cc: bitbake-devel@lists.openembedded.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] bitbake: ensure -f causes dependent tasks to be re-run
X-BeenThere: bitbake-devel@lists.openembedded.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitbake-devel.lists.openembedded.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/bitbake-devel>,
	<mailto:bitbake-devel-request@lists.openembedded.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxtogo.org/pipermail/bitbake-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:bitbake-devel@lists.openembedded.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitbake-devel-request@lists.openembedded.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/bitbake-devel>,
	<mailto:bitbake-devel-request@lists.openembedded.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 19:56:55 -0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Paul Eggleton wrote:
> If -f is specified, force dependent tasks to be re-run next time. This
> works by changing the force behaviour so that instead of deleting the
> task's stamp, we write a "taint" file into the stamps directory, which
> will alter the taskhash randomly and thus trigger the task to re-run

I'm concerned about calling this -f/--force. I don't think I'm alone in i=
nterpreting -f / --force as "run all commands, even if the dependencies s=
ay we don't need to". I would expect the same output as the first time, w=
ith the same sstate checksum.

Would it be reasonable to call it something like -t/--taint instead?

--=20
Bj=F6rn