From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1UWpba-0006vc-Fl for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 17:03:14 +0200 Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 29 Apr 2013 07:43:09 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,574,1363158000"; d="scan'208";a="328242081" Received: from unknown (HELO helios.localnet) ([10.255.12.140]) by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 29 Apr 2013 07:45:02 -0700 From: Paul Eggleton To: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 15:45:01 +0100 Message-ID: <2359996.YCG7Bud1Ca@helios> Organization: Intel Corporation User-Agent: KMail/4.10.2 (Linux/3.8.0-19-generic; KDE/4.10.2; i686; ; ) In-Reply-To: <1367053734.29677.91.camel@ted> References: <1366975838.14512.99.camel@phil-desktop.brightsign> <6907890.oTRpLvAECS@helios> <1367053734.29677.91.camel@ted> MIME-Version: 1.0 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 15:03:20 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On Saturday 27 April 2013 10:08:54 Richard Purdie wrote: > On Sat, 2013-04-27 at 09:34 +0100, Paul Eggleton wrote: > > On Friday 26 April 2013 12:30:38 Phil Blundell wrote: > > > There doesn't appear to be any compelling reason for these tasks to be > > > nostamp and having them re-run on every build can be irritating (for > > > example, when the image is an initramfs which your kernel image depends > > > on). > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Phil Blundell > > > --- > > > > > > meta/classes/image.bbclass | 2 -- > > > 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/meta/classes/image.bbclass b/meta/classes/image.bbclass > > > index ffb372a..667d03d 100644 > > > --- a/meta/classes/image.bbclass > > > +++ b/meta/classes/image.bbclass > > > @@ -168,11 +168,9 @@ LINGUAS_INSTALL ?= "${@" ".join(map(lambda s: > > > "locale-base-%s" % s, d.getVar('IM > > > > > > PSEUDO_PASSWD = "${IMAGE_ROOTFS}" > > > > > > -do_rootfs[nostamp] = "1" > > > > > > do_rootfs[dirs] = "${TOPDIR} ${WORKDIR}/intercept_scripts" > > > do_rootfs[lockfiles] += "${IMAGE_ROOTFS}.lock" > > > do_rootfs[cleandirs] += "${S} ${WORKDIR}/intercept_scripts" > > > > > > -do_build[nostamp] = "1" > > > > > > # Must call real_do_rootfs() from inside here, rather than as a > > > separate > > > # task, so that we have a single fakeroot context for the whole > > > process. > > > > I have to say I'm not in favour of this. AFAIK these tasks have always > > been > > nostamp, and I'm not sure making do_build is going to help for the case > > you > > cite because the dependency on INITRD_IMAGE is on do_rootfs. > > > > If you're concerned about your initramfs image rebuilding when building > > the > > main image, what happens if you specify do_rootfs[nostamp] = "0" ? > > I think this deserves some further thought. It is a pretty major change > however it is something I've wondered about for a while independently of > Phil, I've just never proposed a patch. > > It might help to think about this in an alternative way. Before we has > the sstate checksums, it was near impossible to know when the inputs to > an image had changed and when they had not. Now with the sstate > checksums, we can know when any given input has changed and if it has > changed, the sstate checksum changes and the task re-runs. > > You can therefore make the case that these "nostamp" tasks are a legacy > of the former world and that now, there is no compelling reason to have > them as nostamp. If you particularly want to force them to run, we do > have the -f option and its tainting works here just as well as it does > anywhere else. > > If the rootfs nostamp is removed, there is no reason to have build as a > nostamp either, they were there as a pair. 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. 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. Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre