Re: Cleaning up SDK/Toolchain

[Richard Purdie <rpurdie@rpsys.net>]

On Mon, 2007-10-22 at 17:34 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote:
> Richard Purdie schreef:
> > * Each machine could have its own staging area. To do that you'd have to
> > make the populate staging stamp machine specific. That is possible
> > although bitbake might require some tweaks and it would have
> > implications for rm_work.
> 
> In essence it would make multimachine unimachine :(

Not necessarily. Only the populate_staging task would be machine
specific, not the all the tasks.

With the staging changes I'm thinking of, do_populate_staging basically
becomes a file copy. For the numbers of files we're talking about, it
should be fast. rm_work would still work as long as it preserved the
image directory under work...

> > * We implement packaged staging and only stage the dependencies needed
> > for each package.
>
> That would be a better approach. Graeme, do you still want to have a
> shot at implementing a unionfs based approach?

Hmm. Does that need root privs?

Richard