Op 20 jun 2011, om 06:53 heeft Esben Haabendal het volgende geschreven:
> On Sun, 2011-06-19 at 16:49 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Esben Haabendal
>> <e...@dev.doredevelopment.dk> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2011-06-15 at 18:28 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 5:57 PM, Xu, Dongxiao <dongxiao...@intel.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> Hi Richard,
>>>>>
>>>>> Recently I was doing the "configure optimization" feature and collecting
>>>>> data for it.
>>>>>
>>>>> The main logic of this feature is straight forward:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Use the diff file as autoreconf cache. (I use command: "diff -ruN
>>>>> SOURCE-ORIG SOURCE", here "SOURCE-ORIG" is the source directory before
>>>>> running autoreconf, while "SOURCE" is the directory after running
>>>>> autoreconf).
>>>>> 2. Add SRC_URI checksum for all patches of the source code.
>>>>> 3. Tag each autoreconf cache file with ${PN} and the SRC_URI checksum of
>>>>> source code and all patches.
>>>>> 4. If the currently SRC_URI checksum matches the cached checksum, then we
>>>>> can patch the cache instead of running "autoreconf" stage.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The autoconf'ing is sort of arbitrary at the moment. Depending on what
>>>> is staged the results may vary.
>>>
>>> Which can be properly fixed by using per-recipe (per-workdir) staging.
>>>
>>
>> you seem to be stuck in this tight while(1) loop
>> per recipe staging is not panacea
>
> Well, panacea is a very strong work. But per recipe staging does
> improve build reproducability and reliability quite a bit. As for what
> it is not, I think you might want to try it before speaking to strongly
> against it.
>
>> Do you have some prototypes ?
>
> Yes. OE-lite: http://oe-lite.org
>
> And it works so well, that I cannot understand why OE do not have a plan
> for how to achieve the same.
So why not send a patch to make OE-core have per recipe staging?
_______________________________________________
yocto mailing list
yocto@yoctoproject.org
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
