[PATCH 0/2] Fix incremental rpm image generation

[PATCH 0/2] Fix incremental rpm image generation

[Robert Yang]

The following changes since commit 043871d7e5d2d19c2ff43e54d2ff180c09e8903e:

  kern-tools: integrate minor fixes (2012-05-08 16:06:15 +0100)

are available in the git repository at:
  git://git.pokylinux.org/poky-contrib robert/rpm_inc
  http://git.pokylinux.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/log/?h=robert/rpm_inc

Robert Yang (2):
  package_rpm.bbclass: Fix incremental rpm image generation
  rootfs_rpm.bbclass: don't remove rpmlib when INC_RPM_IMAGE_GEN=1

 meta/classes/package_rpm.bbclass |   20 ++++++++------------
 meta/classes/rootfs_rpm.bbclass  |    7 +++++--
 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

[PATCH 1/2] package_rpm.bbclass: Fix incremental rpm image generation

[Robert Yang]

Fix the incremental rpm image generation, it didn't work since the code
has been changed.

The btmanifest should have a ".manifest" suffix, so that it can be moved
to ${T} by rootfs_rpm.bbclass:
mv ${IMAGE_ROOTFS}/install/*.manifest ${T}/

Note: The locale pkgs would always be re-installed.

[YOCTO #2440]

Signed-off-by: Robert Yang <liezhi.yang@windriver.com>
---
 meta/classes/package_rpm.bbclass |   20 ++++++++------------
 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/meta/classes/package_rpm.bbclass b/meta/classes/package_rpm.bbclass
index 623069e..ddac0cc 100644
--- a/meta/classes/package_rpm.bbclass
+++ b/meta/classes/package_rpm.bbclass
@@ -158,28 +158,24 @@ rpm_common_comand () {
 rpm_update_pkg () {
 
     manifest=$1
-    btmanifest=$manifest.bt
+    btmanifest=$manifest.bt.manifest
+    pre_btmanifest=${T}/${btmanifest##/*/}
     local target_rootfs="${INSTALL_ROOTFS_RPM}"
 
     # Save the rpm's build time for incremental image generation, and the file
     # would be moved to ${T}
-    rm -f $btmanifest
     for i in `cat $manifest`; do
         # Use "rpm" rather than "${RPM}" here, since we don't need the
         # '--dbpath' option
-        echo "$i `rpm -qp --qf '%{BUILDTIME}\n' $i`" >> $btmanifest
-    done
+        echo "$i `rpm -qp --qf '%{BUILDTIME}\n' $i`"
+    done | sort -u > $btmanifest
 
     # Only install the different pkgs if incremental image generation is set
-    if [ "${INC_RPM_IMAGE_GEN}" = "1" -a -f ${T}/total_solution_bt.manifest -a \
+    if [ "${INC_RPM_IMAGE_GEN}" = "1" -a -f "$pre_btmanifest" -a \
         "${IMAGE_PKGTYPE}" = "rpm" ]; then
-        cur_list="$btmanifest"
-        pre_list="${T}/total_solution_bt.manifest"
-        sort -u $cur_list -o $cur_list
-        sort -u $pre_list -o $pre_list
-        comm -1 -3 $cur_list $pre_list | sed 's#.*/\(.*\)\.rpm .*#\1#' > \
+        comm -1 -3 $btmanifest $pre_btmanifest | sed 's#.*/\(.*\)\.rpm .*#\1#' > \
             ${target_rootfs}/install/remove.manifest
-        comm -2 -3 $cur_list $pre_list | awk '{print $1}' > \
+        comm -2 -3 $btmanifest $pre_btmanifest | awk '{print $1}' > \
             ${target_rootfs}/install/incremental.manifest
 
         # Attempt to remove unwanted pkgs, the scripts(pre, post, etc.) has not
@@ -462,7 +458,7 @@ EOF
 	# probably a feature. The only way to convince rpm to actually run the preinstall scripts 
 	# for base-passwd and shadow first before installing packages that depend on these packages 
 	# is to do two image installs, installing one set of packages, then the other.
-	if [ "${INC_RPM_IMAGE_GEN}" = "1" -a -f ${T}/total_solution_bt.manifest ]; then
+	if [ "${INC_RPM_IMAGE_GEN}" = "1" -a -f "$pre_btmanifest" ]; then
 		echo "Skipping pre install due to exisitng image"
 	else
 		echo "# Initial Install manifest" > ${target_rootfs}/install/initial_install.manifest
-- 
1.7.1

[PATCH 2/2] rootfs_rpm.bbclass: don't remove rpmlib when INC_RPM_IMAGE_GEN=1

[Robert Yang]

Don't remove rpmlib when INC_RPM_IMAGE_GEN=1, otherwise the
list_installed_packages would get nothing in the second build.

[YOCTO #2440]

Signed-off-by: Robert Yang <liezhi.yang@windriver.com>
---
 meta/classes/rootfs_rpm.bbclass |    7 +++++--
 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/meta/classes/rootfs_rpm.bbclass b/meta/classes/rootfs_rpm.bbclass
index 9039b21..8ec03d2 100644
--- a/meta/classes/rootfs_rpm.bbclass
+++ b/meta/classes/rootfs_rpm.bbclass
@@ -154,8 +154,11 @@ EOF
 }
 
 remove_packaging_data_files() {
-	rm -rf ${IMAGE_ROOTFS}${rpmlibdir}
-	rm -rf ${IMAGE_ROOTFS}${opkglibdir}
+	# Don't remove the rpmlib when INC_RPM_IMAGE_GEN=1
+	if [ "${INC_RPM_IMAGE_GEN}" != "1" ]; then
+		rm -rf ${IMAGE_ROOTFS}${rpmlibdir}
+		rm -rf ${IMAGE_ROOTFS}${opkglibdir}
+	fi
 }
 
 RPM_QUERY_CMD = '${RPM} --root ${IMAGE_ROOTFS} -D "_dbpath ${rpmlibdir}" \
-- 
1.7.1

Re: [PATCH 2/2] rootfs_rpm.bbclass: don't remove rpmlib when INC_RPM_IMAGE_GEN=1

[Koen Kooi]

Op 9 mei 2012, om 10:20 heeft Robert Yang het volgende geschreven:

> Don't remove rpmlib when INC_RPM_IMAGE_GEN=1, otherwise the
> list_installed_packages would get nothing in the second build.

What happens when I do a build, enable INC_RPM_IMAGE_GEN and do another build?

Re: [PATCH 2/2] rootfs_rpm.bbclass: don't remove rpmlib when INC_RPM_IMAGE_GEN=1

[Mark Hatle]

On 5/9/12 3:50 AM, Koen Kooi wrote:
>
> Op 9 mei 2012, om 10:20 heeft Robert Yang het volgende geschreven:
>
>> Don't remove rpmlib when INC_RPM_IMAGE_GEN=1, otherwise the
>> list_installed_packages would get nothing in the second build.
>
> What happens when I do a build, enable INC_RPM_IMAGE_GEN and do another build?

The intention is that only the packages that have been changed/upgraded will be 
installed.  Instead of the whole image being generated from scratch each time.

--Mark

Re: [PATCH 2/2] rootfs_rpm.bbclass: don't remove rpmlib when INC_RPM_IMAGE_GEN=1

[Koen Kooi]

Op 9 mei 2012, om 16:52 heeft Mark Hatle het volgende geschreven:

> On 5/9/12 3:50 AM, Koen Kooi wrote:
>> 
>> Op 9 mei 2012, om 10:20 heeft Robert Yang het volgende geschreven:
>> 
>>> Don't remove rpmlib when INC_RPM_IMAGE_GEN=1, otherwise the
>>> list_installed_packages would get nothing in the second build.
>> 
>> What happens when I do a build, enable INC_RPM_IMAGE_GEN and do another build?
> 
> The intention is that only the packages that have been changed/upgraded will be installed.  Instead of the whole image being generated from scratch each time.

That's what INC_RPM_IMAGE_GEN does, yes. What I'm asking is how this patch addresses the sequence I outlined above.

Re: [PATCH 2/2] rootfs_rpm.bbclass: don't remove rpmlib when INC_RPM_IMAGE_GEN=1

[Mark Hatle]

On 5/9/12 10:01 AM, Koen Kooi wrote:
>
> Op 9 mei 2012, om 16:52 heeft Mark Hatle het volgende geschreven:
>
>> On 5/9/12 3:50 AM, Koen Kooi wrote:
>>>
>>> Op 9 mei 2012, om 10:20 heeft Robert Yang het volgende geschreven:
>>>
>>>> Don't remove rpmlib when INC_RPM_IMAGE_GEN=1, otherwise the
>>>> list_installed_packages would get nothing in the second build.
>>>
>>> What happens when I do a build, enable INC_RPM_IMAGE_GEN and do another build?
>>
>> The intention is that only the packages that have been changed/upgraded will be installed.  Instead of the whole image being generated from scratch each time.
>
> That's what INC_RPM_IMAGE_GEN does, yes. What I'm asking is how this patch addresses the sequence I outlined above.

Explain what you mean by "build".

Using the following:

. ./oe-init-build-env build-test
<setup local.conf w/ rpm packaging and INC_RPM_IMAGE_GEN>
bitbake core-image-core
--- time passes, git pull pulls in changes ---
bitbake core-image-core

The second "build", only the changed packages will be added to the image.

You you are using different build directories, then it doesn't re-use anything. 
  The purpose of this is incremental software development within a single build 
directory.

--Mark

> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core

Re: [PATCH 2/2] rootfs_rpm.bbclass: don't remove rpmlib when INC_RPM_IMAGE_GEN=1

[Koen Kooi]

Op 9 mei 2012, om 17:15 heeft Mark Hatle het volgende geschreven:

> On 5/9/12 10:01 AM, Koen Kooi wrote:
>> 
>> Op 9 mei 2012, om 16:52 heeft Mark Hatle het volgende geschreven:
>> 
>>> On 5/9/12 3:50 AM, Koen Kooi wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Op 9 mei 2012, om 10:20 heeft Robert Yang het volgende geschreven:
>>>> 
>>>>> Don't remove rpmlib when INC_RPM_IMAGE_GEN=1, otherwise the
>>>>> list_installed_packages would get nothing in the second build.
>>>> 
>>>> What happens when I do a build, enable INC_RPM_IMAGE_GEN and do another build?
>>> 
>>> The intention is that only the packages that have been changed/upgraded will be installed.  Instead of the whole image being generated from scratch each time.
>> 
>> That's what INC_RPM_IMAGE_GEN does, yes. What I'm asking is how this patch addresses the sequence I outlined above.
> 
> Explain what you mean by "build".
> 
> Using the following:
> 
> . ./oe-init-build-env build-test
> <setup local.conf w/ rpm packaging and INC_RPM_IMAGE_GEN>
> bitbake core-image-core
> --- time passes, git pull pulls in changes ---
> bitbake core-image-core
> 
> The second "build", only the changed packages will be added to the image.
> 
> You you are using different build directories, then it doesn't re-use anything.  The purpose of this is incremental software development within a single build directory.

You are still missing my point. The patch is broken if you change INC_RPM_IMAGE_GEN

Re: [PATCH 2/2] rootfs_rpm.bbclass: don't remove rpmlib when INC_RPM_IMAGE_GEN=1

[Mark Hatle]

On 5/9/12 10:24 AM, Koen Kooi wrote:
>
> Op 9 mei 2012, om 17:15 heeft Mark Hatle het volgende geschreven:
>
>> On 5/9/12 10:01 AM, Koen Kooi wrote:
>>>
>>> Op 9 mei 2012, om 16:52 heeft Mark Hatle het volgende geschreven:
>>>
>>>> On 5/9/12 3:50 AM, Koen Kooi wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Op 9 mei 2012, om 10:20 heeft Robert Yang het volgende geschreven:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't remove rpmlib when INC_RPM_IMAGE_GEN=1, otherwise the
>>>>>> list_installed_packages would get nothing in the second build.
>>>>>
>>>>> What happens when I do a build, enable INC_RPM_IMAGE_GEN and do another build?
>>>>
>>>> The intention is that only the packages that have been changed/upgraded will be installed.  Instead of the whole image being generated from scratch each time.
>>>
>>> That's what INC_RPM_IMAGE_GEN does, yes. What I'm asking is how this patch addresses the sequence I outlined above.
>>
>> Explain what you mean by "build".
>>
>> Using the following:
>>
>> . ./oe-init-build-env build-test
>> <setup local.conf w/ rpm packaging and INC_RPM_IMAGE_GEN>
>> bitbake core-image-core
>> --- time passes, git pull pulls in changes ---
>> bitbake core-image-core
>>
>> The second "build", only the changed packages will be added to the image.
>>
>> You you are using different build directories, then it doesn't re-use anything.  The purpose of this is incremental software development within a single build directory.
>
> You are still missing my point. The patch is broken if you change INC_RPM_IMAGE_GEN

I am absolutely missing your point.

I don't see what is wrong in the following, but I haven't tried it:

> -	rm -rf ${IMAGE_ROOTFS}${rpmlibdir}
> -	rm -rf ${IMAGE_ROOTFS}${opkglibdir}
> +	# Don't remove the rpmlib when INC_RPM_IMAGE_GEN=1
> +	if [ "${INC_RPM_IMAGE_GEN}" != "1" ]; then
> +		rm -rf ${IMAGE_ROOTFS}${rpmlibdir}
> +		rm -rf ${IMAGE_ROOTFS}${opkglibdir}
> +	fi

If the INC_RPM_IMAGE_GEN is not set to '1'.  (Specifically '1' as opposed to 
just checking if it's set.) then it'll remove the existing image packaging database.

--Mark

> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core

Re: [PATCH 2/2] rootfs_rpm.bbclass: don't remove rpmlib when INC_RPM_IMAGE_GEN=1

[Robert Yang]

On 05/09/2012 11:24 PM, Koen Kooi wrote:
>
> Op 9 mei 2012, om 17:15 heeft Mark Hatle het volgende geschreven:
>
>> On 5/9/12 10:01 AM, Koen Kooi wrote:
>>>
>>> Op 9 mei 2012, om 16:52 heeft Mark Hatle het volgende geschreven:
>>>
>>>> On 5/9/12 3:50 AM, Koen Kooi wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Op 9 mei 2012, om 10:20 heeft Robert Yang het volgende geschreven:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't remove rpmlib when INC_RPM_IMAGE_GEN=1, otherwise the
>>>>>> list_installed_packages would get nothing in the second build.
>>>>>
>>>>> What happens when I do a build, enable INC_RPM_IMAGE_GEN and do another build?
>>>>
>>>> The intention is that only the packages that have been changed/upgraded will be installed.  Instead of the whole image being generated from scratch each time.
>>>
>>> That's what INC_RPM_IMAGE_GEN does, yes. What I'm asking is how this patch addresses the sequence I outlined above.
>>
>> Explain what you mean by "build".
>>
>> Using the following:
>>
>> . ./oe-init-build-env build-test
>> <setup local.conf w/ rpm packaging and INC_RPM_IMAGE_GEN>
>> bitbake core-image-core
>> --- time passes, git pull pulls in changes ---
>> bitbake core-image-core
>>
>> The second "build", only the changed packages will be added to the image.
>>
>> You you are using different build directories, then it doesn't re-use anything.  The purpose of this is incremental software development within a single build directory.
>
> You are still missing my point. The patch is broken if you change INC_RPM_IMAGE_GEN

Only the core-image-minimal has this problem, other images won't remove the
database, the core-image-minimal removes the database to save disk space (
only saves quite a little), and I don't know whether there is a better solution
for the core-image-minimal, maybe move the database to ${T} rather than remove
it, and move it back to the rootfs directory at the early stage of do_rootfs, 
but I don't know whether this is worth or not since this is just used for
saving the time at the development stage, as it had told:

# Incremental rpm image generation, the rootfs would be totally removed
# and re-created in the second generation by default, but with
# INC_RPM_IMAGE_GEN = "1", the rpm based rootfs would be kept, and will
# do update(remove/add some pkgs) on it.  NOTE: This is not suggested
# when you want to create a productive rootfs

// Robert

> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
>

Re: [PATCH 2/2] rootfs_rpm.bbclass: don't remove rpmlib when INC_RPM_IMAGE_GEN=1

[Saul Wold]

On 05/09/2012 07:13 PM, Robert Yang wrote:
>
>
> On 05/09/2012 11:24 PM, Koen Kooi wrote:
>>
>> Op 9 mei 2012, om 17:15 heeft Mark Hatle het volgende geschreven:
>>
>>> On 5/9/12 10:01 AM, Koen Kooi wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Op 9 mei 2012, om 16:52 heeft Mark Hatle het volgende geschreven:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/9/12 3:50 AM, Koen Kooi wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Op 9 mei 2012, om 10:20 heeft Robert Yang het volgende geschreven:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Don't remove rpmlib when INC_RPM_IMAGE_GEN=1, otherwise the
>>>>>>> list_installed_packages would get nothing in the second build.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What happens when I do a build, enable INC_RPM_IMAGE_GEN and do
>>>>>> another build?
>>>>>
>>>>> The intention is that only the packages that have been
>>>>> changed/upgraded will be installed. Instead of the whole image
>>>>> being generated from scratch each time.
>>>>
>>>> That's what INC_RPM_IMAGE_GEN does, yes. What I'm asking is how this
>>>> patch addresses the sequence I outlined above.
>>>
>>> Explain what you mean by "build".
>>>
>>> Using the following:
>>>
>>> . ./oe-init-build-env build-test
>>> <setup local.conf w/ rpm packaging and INC_RPM_IMAGE_GEN>
>>> bitbake core-image-core
>>> --- time passes, git pull pulls in changes ---
>>> bitbake core-image-core
>>>
>>> The second "build", only the changed packages will be added to the
>>> image.
>>>
>>> You you are using different build directories, then it doesn't re-use
>>> anything. The purpose of this is incremental software development
>>> within a single build directory.
>>
>> You are still missing my point. The patch is broken if you change
>> INC_RPM_IMAGE_GEN
>
> Only the core-image-minimal has this problem, other images won't remove the
> database, the core-image-minimal removes the database to save disk space (
> only saves quite a little), and I don't know whether there is a better
> solution
> for the core-image-minimal, maybe move the database to ${T} rather than
> remove
> it, and move it back to the rootfs directory at the early stage of
> do_rootfs, but I don't know whether this is worth or not since this is
> just used for
> saving the time at the development stage, as it had told:
>
Robert,

The move might be the best solution since it will preserve it and make 
the behavior more predictable, ie if one starts with INC_RPM_IMAGE_GEN 
disabled and then enables it the package database will be available 
already.  It would also preserve the space in the core-image-minimal by 
not keeping those database files in the image.

Please respin this patch.

Thanks
	Sau!



> # Incremental rpm image generation, the rootfs would be totally removed
> # and re-created in the second generation by default, but with
> # INC_RPM_IMAGE_GEN = "1", the rpm based rootfs would be kept, and will
> # do update(remove/add some pkgs) on it. NOTE: This is not suggested
> # when you want to create a productive rootfs
>
> // Robert
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Openembedded-core mailing list
>> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
>> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
>
>

Re: [PATCH 2/2] rootfs_rpm.bbclass: don't remove rpmlib when INC_RPM_IMAGE_GEN=1

[Robert Yang]

On 05/12/2012 12:54 AM, Saul Wold wrote:
> On 05/09/2012 07:13 PM, Robert Yang wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 05/09/2012 11:24 PM, Koen Kooi wrote:
>>>
>>> Op 9 mei 2012, om 17:15 heeft Mark Hatle het volgende geschreven:
>>>
>>>> On 5/9/12 10:01 AM, Koen Kooi wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Op 9 mei 2012, om 16:52 heeft Mark Hatle het volgende geschreven:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/9/12 3:50 AM, Koen Kooi wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Op 9 mei 2012, om 10:20 heeft Robert Yang het volgende geschreven:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Don't remove rpmlib when INC_RPM_IMAGE_GEN=1, otherwise the
>>>>>>>> list_installed_packages would get nothing in the second build.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What happens when I do a build, enable INC_RPM_IMAGE_GEN and do
>>>>>>> another build?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The intention is that only the packages that have been
>>>>>> changed/upgraded will be installed. Instead of the whole image
>>>>>> being generated from scratch each time.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's what INC_RPM_IMAGE_GEN does, yes. What I'm asking is how this
>>>>> patch addresses the sequence I outlined above.
>>>>
>>>> Explain what you mean by "build".
>>>>
>>>> Using the following:
>>>>
>>>> . ./oe-init-build-env build-test
>>>> <setup local.conf w/ rpm packaging and INC_RPM_IMAGE_GEN>
>>>> bitbake core-image-core
>>>> --- time passes, git pull pulls in changes ---
>>>> bitbake core-image-core
>>>>
>>>> The second "build", only the changed packages will be added to the
>>>> image.
>>>>
>>>> You you are using different build directories, then it doesn't re-use
>>>> anything. The purpose of this is incremental software development
>>>> within a single build directory.
>>>
>>> You are still missing my point. The patch is broken if you change
>>> INC_RPM_IMAGE_GEN
>>
>> Only the core-image-minimal has this problem, other images won't remove the
>> database, the core-image-minimal removes the database to save disk space (
>> only saves quite a little), and I don't know whether there is a better
>> solution
>> for the core-image-minimal, maybe move the database to ${T} rather than
>> remove
>> it, and move it back to the rootfs directory at the early stage of
>> do_rootfs, but I don't know whether this is worth or not since this is
>> just used for
>> saving the time at the development stage, as it had told:
>>
> Robert,
>
> The move might be the best solution since it will preserve it and make the
> behavior more predictable, ie if one starts with INC_RPM_IMAGE_GEN disabled and
> then enables it the package database will be available already. It would also
> preserve the space in the core-image-minimal by not keeping those database files
> in the image.
>

Thanks Saul, I will send a V2 for it.

// Robert

> Please respin this patch.
>
> Thanks
> Sau!
>
>
>
>> # Incremental rpm image generation, the rootfs would be totally removed
>> # and re-created in the second generation by default, but with
>> # INC_RPM_IMAGE_GEN = "1", the rpm based rootfs would be kept, and will
>> # do update(remove/add some pkgs) on it. NOTE: This is not suggested
>> # when you want to create a productive rootfs
>>
>> // Robert
>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Openembedded-core mailing list
>>> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
>>> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Openembedded-core mailing list
>> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
>> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
>>
>>
>

Re: [PATCH 2/2] rootfs_rpm.bbclass: don't remove rpmlib when INC_RPM_IMAGE_GEN=1

[Marko Lindqvist]

On 9 May 2012 18:15, Mark Hatle <mark.hatle@windriver.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/9/12 3:50 AM, Koen Kooi wrote:
>>>>
>>>> What happens when I do a build, enable INC_RPM_IMAGE_GEN and do another
>>>> build?
>
> Using the following:
>
> . ./oe-init-build-env build-test
> <setup local.conf w/ rpm packaging and INC_RPM_IMAGE_GEN>
> bitbake core-image-core
> --- time passes, git pull pulls in changes ---
> bitbake core-image-core

 That's not the same sequence. You were supposed to make first build
with INC_RPM_IMAGE_GEN unset, and set it for second build only.


 - ML

Re: [PATCH 2/2] rootfs_rpm.bbclass: don't remove rpmlib when INC_RPM_IMAGE_GEN=1

[Mark Hatle]

On 5/9/12 10:54 AM, Marko Lindqvist wrote:
> On 9 May 2012 18:15, Mark Hatle<mark.hatle@windriver.com>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/9/12 3:50 AM, Koen Kooi wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> What happens when I do a build, enable INC_RPM_IMAGE_GEN and do another
>>>>> build?
>>
>> Using the following:
>>
>> . ./oe-init-build-env build-test
>> <setup local.conf w/ rpm packaging and INC_RPM_IMAGE_GEN>
>> bitbake core-image-core
>> --- time passes, git pull pulls in changes ---
>> bitbake core-image-core
>
>   That's not the same sequence. You were supposed to make first build
> with INC_RPM_IMAGE_GEN unset, and set it for second build only.

If the value changes from one build to the next the behavior is undefined.  It 
will probably work, but it's not guaranteed.  (I'd need to look at the full 
implementation to verify that...)

--Mark

>
>   - ML
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core