From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-it0-f43.google.com (mail-it0-f43.google.com [209.85.214.43]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5B4F7855C for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 18:35:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-it0-f43.google.com with SMTP id p67-v6so450676itc.2 for ; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 11:35:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id; bh=pU3a0+jdnWgCRjk810OQ3Cswpo5G/z5S6Rpweb6leoQ=; b=FlSTc5DzEy915UFBFWsGHYUd2LzoKjaS0hBT+fNj+0zr4gaDIA+oQMaoGCIUOVpY5U JsmvHEdA7Yd0vTcnQyqteQQYZey0YCpLd1CTeAhO2oaTQdlXDflSfTGyLoJCfIMZswzm Uixj+AvwisPwxHXWbYGK72d+t05DRCyqSJYryeNgEL05PKfqw9Q5uEs8YHehiuvWAI6F AouWV4H1F73fdWo8Rb4fbXxAJhaSI37xRlPdfZwtgoHCOmdkjjiRwrz2NiLdZ6PGnsuo 8xSwFkCczXd8SIy9YcLh9evC7JohFWKdjOSOm+7fFmCOuvIj4sHlswcD3hVqgurZJqh7 tZYg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:subject:date:message-id; bh=pU3a0+jdnWgCRjk810OQ3Cswpo5G/z5S6Rpweb6leoQ=; b=FthDOyTMPdXkw1oe9k8hVtwo0xA3DXTTSGQ0oh6/FWdx0ueGpVEb4gnx8OtV3eqBt9 mf5tDiCuMuKIiM5sPqLRaly1fMeFxyF3u09vNKdzsaOUXYCFvjG3y046qGau1eS/9wnD UyLzuZAGLlJDMaqkb4K++etZ/EXVNRQF2v74Vn/7DitkNMDso7cJCuNRuB6hHVGngip7 QaF3eK4bFzT9Bjy+h9FmTAGMzgeAOoUVjHpO5U1PglkGiHyomu9fj1VYIFyiowiZElTS z/oY6UCx9ILR0tb22D90H4HgGenjxl81DJ8O/tgaqWBxVHlZ28++/KAVs6C2qvpVOrgv N/yA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tCMGBUaHJGmqghxb05wK8hXSelaPSGM8SM/sRW3MKdnO5k2w/1R lRRt8AR/VL2dp2Q+HupZ0qni3BQ6 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AIpwx4+UbrGEKQNT3etqemeJAUbZnbiM2sYM+A0XR+KSiCotyGCp5vY3p5bUQQwMxhmwiABz2cfJRA== X-Received: by 2002:a24:3d4f:: with SMTP id n76-v6mr371738itn.147.1522175732846; Tue, 27 Mar 2018 11:35:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ola-842mrw1.ad.garmin.com ([204.77.163.55]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id p142-v6sm1465070itb.24.2018.03.27.11.35.32 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Tue, 27 Mar 2018 11:35:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Joshua Watt X-Google-Original-From: Joshua Watt To: bitbake-devel@lists.openembedded.org Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 13:34:26 -0500 Message-Id: <20180327183427.13983-1-JPEWhacker@gmail.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.14.3 Subject: [RFC] Respect force flag in runall and runonly X-BeenThere: bitbake-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussion that advance bitbake development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2018 18:35:32 -0000 Implements the ability to run bitbake commands like: $ bitbake -f --runall fetch core-image-mimimal $ bitbake -f --runonly fetch core-image-minimal which will invalidate the stamps for all affected tasks forcing them to run even if they have already. I've found this useful in a few circumstances. Most recently, I was attempting to do A/B performance comparison of so package QA checks, so it was pretty easy to figure out the impact of various QA checks with: $ time bitbake -f --runall package_qa core-image-minimal Additionally, I currently do a number of actions like this (because we don't have runall): $ bitbake -g $ xargs -a pn-buildlist bitbake -f -c And I would like to replace them with $ bitbake -f --runall Is this something that is even necessary/wanted?