On 07-10-15 15:04, Burton, Ross wrote:
On 7 October 2015 at 13:59, Burton, Ross mailto:ross.bur...@intel.com>> wrote:
Follow the link in the patch to the referenced bug, and comment #8 by Mark
Hatle explains the problems that Wind River were seeing in testing:
I should also add that
On 7 October 2015 at 13:59, Burton, Ross wrote:
> Follow the link in the patch to the referenced bug, and comment #8 by Mark
> Hatle explains the problems that Wind River were seeing in testing:
>
I should also add that many people buy lots of RAM and do builds with
build/tmp in a tmpfs as it gi
On 7 October 2015 at 02:37, Luke (Lucas) Starrett
wrote:
> I’m aware of the checks added by changes like this:
>
>
>
> patchwork.openembedded.org/patch/61107/
>
>
>
> However, I don’t see the reasoning/background documented as to exactly
> what is actually broken when putting tmp on NFS. Is it t
Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 3:01 AM
To: yocto@yoctoproject.org
Subject: Re: [yocto] tmp on NFS
I can think of various things that would go wrong with tmp on NFS. One of the
most obvious example would be to try and change the network configuration while
running, and needing some temporary fi
I can think of various things that would go wrong with tmp on NFS. One of the
most obvious example would be to try and change the network configuration
while running, and needing some temporary file to manage that.\
I think the expectation is that /tmp should be accessible at all times, and
t
Hi,
Can anybody give a brief history of time on why using an NFS drive for tmp is
necessarily a bad thing, and why we have a sanity check for it? We're doing
this without any obvious side effects.
I'm aware of the checks added by changes like this:
patchwork.openembedded.org/patch/61107/
How
