From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.mlbassoc.com ([65.100.170.105] helo=mail.chez-thomas.org) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Uce8X-0001IQ-3Q for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Wed, 15 May 2013 18:01:45 +0200 Received: by mail.chez-thomas.org (Postfix, from userid 1998) id 4FDA3F811DA; Wed, 15 May 2013 09:42:53 -0600 (MDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on hermes.chez-thomas.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=4.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00 autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.2 Received: from [192.168.1.114] (zeus [192.168.1.114]) by mail.chez-thomas.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECB56F81199; Wed, 15 May 2013 09:42:51 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <5193ACFC.5070509@mlbassoc.com> Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 09:42:52 -0600 From: Gary Thomas User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130510 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard Purdie References: <51939E73.8070605@mlbassoc.com> <1368629183.6920.101.camel@phil-desktop.brightsign> <1368629601.18324.1.camel@ted> In-Reply-To: <1368629601.18324.1.camel@ted> Cc: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer Subject: Re: Image dependency broken 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: Wed, 15 May 2013 16:01:58 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 2013-05-15 08:53, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Wed, 2013-05-15 at 15:46 +0100, Phil Blundell wrote: >> On Wed, 2013-05-15 at 08:40 -0600, Gary Thomas wrote: >>> * Build an image, e.g. core-image-sato >>> $ bitbake core-image-sato >>> * Cause some dependency to be rebuilt >>> $ bitbake xserver-xorg -c cleansstate >>> * Rebuild the image >>> $ bitbake core-image-sato >> >> That's probably to be expected. You haven't done anything to actually >> change the xserver-xorg package, just regenerated the same bits as you >> had before, so there's no reason why the image would need rebuilding. >> >> Does it rebuild the image correctly if you do make a change to the >> xserver-xorg package? > > Agreed, this is expected since the xserver-xorg output is unchanged and > therefore the system is deciding it doesn't need to rebuild the image. > If you change xserver-xorg somehow the checksum will change and the > image will rebuild. Understood. I'm sure that I had a recipe which did have such a change that failed to cause my image to be rebuilt (not this contrived example that I thought was the same). However, I can't make it happen now. If it happens again, I'll get back to you. Thanks -- ------------------------------------------------------------ Gary Thomas | Consulting for the MLB Associates | Embedded world ------------------------------------------------------------