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

[Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>]

On Tuesday 26 March 2013 18:55:14 Martin Jansa wrote:
> 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 :)

You may well be right... BB_HASHBASE_WHITELIST has been around for so long 
though that I don't think we could consider changing it.

Cheers,
Paul

-- 

Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre