Re: [PATCH 1/1] rm_work.bbclass: inhibit rm_work per recipe

[Martin Jansa <martin.jansa@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1315 bytes --]

On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 05:12:16PM +0000, Paul Eggleton wrote:
> On Wednesday 13 March 2013 15:01:33 Qi.Chen@windriver.com wrote:
> > From: Chen Qi <Qi.Chen@windriver.com>
> > 
> > Use RM_WORK_WHITELIST to inhibit rm_work per recipe. In this way,
> > one can use rm_work for the most of the recipes but still keep the
> > work area for the recipe(s) one is working on.
> > 
> > As an example, the following settings in local.conf will inhibit
> > rm_work for icu-native, icu and busybox.
> >     INHERIT += "rm_work"
> >     RM_WORK_WHITELIST += "icu-native icu busybox"
> > 
> > If we comment out the RM_WORK_WHITELIST line and do a rebuild, the
> > working area of these recipes will be cleaned up.
> 
> This is a great feature, but I just looked at it and realised that the term 
> "whitelist" isn't really correct - this is more of a blacklist.
> 
> The question is does it matter? If so we should probably change it now before 
> it becomes too hard to change...

I got similar question yesterday about BB_HASHBASE_WHITELIST:

'And why is it called "WHITELIST"? Shouldn't things that are excluded be
in a "BLACKLIST"?'

Maybe term WHITELIST isn't correct in both of them, at least they are
consistent as it is now :).

-- 
Martin 'JaMa' Jansa     jabber: Martin.Jansa@gmail.com

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 205 bytes --]