Re: [PATCH 2/3] rm_work_and_downloads.bbclass: more aggressively minimize disk usage

[Patrick Ohly <patrick.ohly@intel.com>]

On Sat, 2017-01-07 at 09:09 +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-01-06 at 13:29 -0800, Randy Witt wrote:
> 
> 
> > There are times that the work directories help with the debugging of
> > build failures. The logs aren't always enough. So a person might want
> > to do something like remove the downloads, but preserve the actual
> > work, especially in the case of failures.
> > 
> > 
> > I'll admit it is a fabricated scenario, but in general I'm against one
> > knob requiring the turning of another knob.
> 
> In principle I agree. Okay, let's separate the two.

I hit one snag when starting to do that: the implementation of download
removal depends on do_rm_work from rm_work.bbclass for hooking into the
build of a recipe at the right place.

I can't think of an easy way of avoiding that without duplicating the
complex logic from rm_work.bbclass, which itself is currently about to
change, so I'd prefer to keep rm_work_and_downloads.bbclass as proposed.

-- 
Best Regards, Patrick Ohly

The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although
I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way
represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak
on behalf of Intel on this matter.