2011/5/19 Richard Purdie <richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org> > On Thu, 2011-05-19 at 14:02 +0200, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote: > > 2011/5/19 Richard Purdie <richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org> > > > > > On Thu, 2011-05-19 at 13:01 +0200, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote: > > > > What should I do to either disable this for some recipes, or use a > > > > different (private) server? > > > > We do not wish to rely on an external server for proprietary recipes > (or > > > for > > > > recipes for which we made a local change in an overlay). > > > > How is this case handled? > > > > > > This could be handled by doing things like setting: > > > > > > PRSERV_HOST_pn-myprivaterecipe = "somelocalhost" > > > > > > or > > > > > > PRSERV_HOST_pn-myprivaterecipe = "" > > > > > > to disable it. > > > > > > One thing we lack is a good way to apply changes like this, only if > code > > > is within a given layer. Even in that case, it should be possible with > > > anonymous python to look at the location of the current .bb file and > > > then conditionally set these variables as appropriate to the right > > > server. > > > > > > Certainly this needs to be thought about and documented but I think > > > there are ways to do it. > > > > > > Pardon my ignorance, but I do not really understand the complete flow > and > > way of working. > > > > Anyway if I do something like: > > PRSERV_HOST_pn-myprivaterecipe = "" > > would I still be able to use PR in my recipe (like I do today)? > > Yes, since the PR server appends to this. > > > Also we do have the issue that it is desired to be able to rebuild > without > > network connectivity (e.g. while temporary offline while travelling). > Would > > that still be possible? > > You could use a local PR server. Obviously connecting to one central > server without any network connectivity isn't going to happen so we have > to be realistic about expectations. > > To make a perfect rebuild the local PR server would need a dump of the > database on the central server. There isn't code for that at the moment > and I don't think its the highest priority task out there or the most > important use case but its certainly possible for someone to add. >
I'd say it would already be nice if some caching is being done locally (just like is done with e.g. downloads). > > > For layers, one solution could be to allow variable overriding on the > > overlay level. I can imagine there are more uses for that (and I > understand > > this requires changes to the bitbake machinery). > > There is certainly a use case for something like this. The exact > implementation and workings needs a lot more thought and discussion > though. I believe its at least already possible in anonymous python (and > if not, any extensions needed shouldn't be invasive by comparison). > > Hm. you consider this PR change to be non-invasive? BTW I am not saying it is not good, and I understand the problem that you want to solve, but I feel this could require some more thought wrt the issues I raised before in this thread (and some more documentation and usage info). Frans. _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core