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 1UKYT1-0002QX-EZ for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Tue, 26 Mar 2013 19:20:15 +0100 Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 26 Mar 2013 11:00:49 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,913,1355126400"; d="scan'208";a="307712304" Received: from unknown (HELO helios.localnet) ([10.255.13.152]) by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 26 Mar 2013 11:02:25 -0700 From: Paul Eggleton To: Martin Jansa Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 18:02:24 +0000 Message-ID: <4660079.3r9XkPrOEm@helios> Organization: Intel Corporation User-Agent: KMail/4.10.1 (Linux/3.5.0-26-generic; KDE/4.10.1; i686; ; ) In-Reply-To: <20130326175514.GK7539@jama> References: <5482882.4phbAeRO1n@helios> <20130326175514.GK7539@jama> MIME-Version: 1.0 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 18:20:30 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" 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 > > > > > > 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