Op 19 jan. 2012, om 14:08 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven: > We've recently added the buildhistory class and I wanted to illustrate > how it can help us improve the quality of what we're doing. I appreciate > elements of this have been around for a while as part of testlab
About 4 years: http://dominion.thruhere.net/koen/cms/the-testlab-strikes-again :D > but I > do want to raise the profile of these tools. I added: > > INHERIT += "buildhistory" > BUILDHISTORY_COMMIT = "1" > > to my local.conf, then ran "bitbake gst-openmax liba52 js". I then > applied the staticdev patches from Saul, which should only move the .a > files to the -staticdev package. I then ran the bitbake command again. > > If I change into tmp/buildhistory and show the last commit the result is > included below. Since the version changed, the diff isn't as readable as > would be ideal, however reading through it clearly shows the .a files > moving to the staticdev packages with no unintended changes as far as I > could tell. > > One of my big worries with the staticdev changes is any unintended > packaging changes. This lets me view the changes more precisely which > can only lead to higher quality regression spotting for the project. I'd > like to suggest more people start enabling this and using it to check > the changes they're making. If you want to see a longer history, have a look at https://github.com/Angstrom-distribution/buildhistory/commits/master, I've been using it heavily today when working on udev 177 which changed its default filesystem layout. One thing to keep in mind: $ du -hs /data/ssd/OE/buildhistory/ 548M /data/ssd/OE/buildhistory/ I keep it on an SSD to avoid needing to wait a few minutes after every bitbake invocation. regards, Koen _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
