From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pd0-f181.google.com ([209.85.192.181]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UKYM8-00023Z-Rm for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 19:12:55 +0100 Received: by mail-pd0-f181.google.com with SMTP id q10so3151285pdj.12 for ; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 10:55:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to :user-agent; bh=fZBaIFoqBgPNO1/vri+EqHRibBZecIaf4lhofn1t3fs=; b=0fiaVZYfhqC9HKJagzGUXcaS8j0HtCtR/y5CdMOWi84aTpG5gnqvzWxPCLrE7ZjKkZ 4AzG2YiqiOL/lTA9ygQ5c8+Q7RMSRxus6kO8YH2p8ojg3NuQZ/5egonaE+PzNR2Oiadu mV3GBAylQjuJsDH6UTy8+nW7ixKo3oTFx4JlRe18BKHKv3LD77egRHgTercuZMdlSzce 2sPrb+D05VvX0L5KP+scgew/ka8Glv6pF4rAG87jGpqSwnPlHNutInhgeTr1Jxf+ZTcB tcdiM8MXUIuJPZv6YVQpH+Fw09LeBj/Zhw1p/T9Z+wom6pSNWfnGh1FmQKvOPmAGUo8t ACew== X-Received: by 10.66.197.136 with SMTP id iu8mr3616081pac.0.1364320520255; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 10:55:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (ip-62-24-80-7.net.upcbroadband.cz. [62.24.80.7]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id to7sm4981499pab.0.2013.03.26.10.55.17 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 26 Mar 2013 10:55:18 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 18:55:14 +0100 From: Martin Jansa To: Paul Eggleton Message-ID: <20130326175514.GK7539@jama> References: <5482882.4phbAeRO1n@helios> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5482882.4phbAeRO1n@helios> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: qingtao.cao@windriver.com, openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] rm_work.bbclass: inhibit rm_work per recipe 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: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 18:13:00 -0000 X-Groupsio-MsgNum: 37127 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="W2ydbIOJmkm74tJ2" Content-Disposition: inline --W2ydbIOJmkm74tJ2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 > >=20 > > 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. > >=20 > > As an example, the following settings in local.conf will inhibit > > rm_work for icu-native, icu and busybox. > > INHERIT +=3D "rm_work" > > RM_WORK_WHITELIST +=3D "icu-native icu busybox" > >=20 > > If we comment out the RM_WORK_WHITELIST line and do a rebuild, the > > working area of these recipes will be cleaned up. >=20 > This is a great feature, but I just looked at it and realised that the te= rm=20 > "whitelist" isn't really correct - this is more of a blacklist. >=20 > The question is does it matter? If so we should probably change it now be= fore=20 > 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 :). --=20 Martin 'JaMa' Jansa jabber: Martin.Jansa@gmail.com --W2ydbIOJmkm74tJ2 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlFR4QIACgkQN1Ujt2V2gBx3SwCfb6j5vbft7wIsb4/eVH3hYRpX dEQAoI6Yiu4tHSKolphR2EwCFbvT/RB5 =I2aq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --W2ydbIOJmkm74tJ2--