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

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

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1208 bytes --]

On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 10:01:05PM +0100, Phil Blundell wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-03-26 at 17:52 +0000, Paul Eggleton wrote:
> > I'm sure this has come up before, but is rm_old_work something we ought to 
> > have in OE-Core?
> 
> Obviously it's not for me to say, but I suspect probably not.  It
> requires ${WORKDIR} to follow a particular pattern, which not everybody

That pattern is now default in oe-core:
commit 05075cf3138d1c61f5cf4fe0e1a4587acc00c692
Author: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
Date:   Fri Nov 16 15:35:53 2012 +0000

    bitbake.conf/sanity: Separate versions and PN stamp components into
separate directories for WORKDIR and STAMP


> will necessarily want, and I don't think you could really argue that it
> represents "core" functionality either.

I think that in some cases it's more useful then rm_work.

IMHO only missing part is good documentation (or better name) describing
rm_work/rm_work_old difference:

1) rm_work is much better for builds in tmpfs
2) rm_work_old is better then rm_work if you have enough space to keep
1 WORKDIR for each component you're building

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

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