From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from dan.rpsys.net ([93.97.175.187]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UWplD-0007sr-Kz for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:13:13 +0200 Received: from localhost (dan.rpsys.net [127.0.0.1]) by dan.rpsys.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-2.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id r3TEtm6M003950; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 15:56:34 +0100 X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at dan.rpsys.net Received: from dan.rpsys.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (dan.rpsys.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 0yerHJ5DGy_W; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 15:56:34 +0100 (BST) Received: from [192.168.3.10] (rpvlan0 [192.168.3.10]) (authenticated bits=0) by dan.rpsys.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-2.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id r3TEuUEw004010 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 29 Apr 2013 15:56:31 +0100 Message-ID: <1367247290.5379.31.camel@ted> From: Richard Purdie To: Paul Eggleton Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 15:54:50 +0100 In-Reply-To: <2359996.YCG7Bud1Ca@helios> References: <1366975838.14512.99.camel@phil-desktop.brightsign> <6907890.oTRpLvAECS@helios> <1367053734.29677.91.camel@ted> <2359996.YCG7Bud1Ca@helios> X-Mailer: Evolution 3.6.2-0ubuntu0.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] image.bbclass: Don't mark do_rootfs and do_build as nostamp X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 15:13:28 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Mon, 2013-04-29 at 15:45 +0100, Paul Eggleton wrote: > So upon further reflection, I'm guessing my objections were only really about > changing the status quo, as well as a lot of my own testing involving re- > running the image creation step without really changing anything other than > the code that contributes to do_rootfs; it could be argued that my use case > would be equally served by me setting nostamp locally or using -f, and > everyone else having the benefit of not rebuilding the image when not needed. Remember as well that if you change the rootfs code, that will change the rootfs stamp and the image will get regenerated. So it should even work for your use case, if it doesn't, we have bigger dependencies issues which we should fix which would be the real problems. > Given that this is a departure from previously established behaviour, I do > think we need to give a more of an explanation in the commit message than the > proposed patch however; something that summarises Richard's explanation above > would be informative. Agreed, Phil's commit message missed out a few important points. Cheers, Richard