On Mon, 2013-04-29 at 15:45 +0100, Paul Eggleton wrote: > So upon further reflection, I'm guessing my objections were only really about > changing the status quo, as well as a lot of my own testing involving re- > running the image creation step without really changing anything other than > the code that contributes to do_rootfs; it could be argued that my use case > would be equally served by me setting nostamp locally or using -f, and > everyone else having the benefit of not rebuilding the image when not needed.
Remember as well that if you change the rootfs code, that will change the rootfs stamp and the image will get regenerated. So it should even work for your use case, if it doesn't, we have bigger dependencies issues which we should fix which would be the real problems. > Given that this is a departure from previously established behaviour, I do > think we need to give a more of an explanation in the commit message than the > proposed patch however; something that summarises Richard's explanation above > would be informative. Agreed, Phil's commit message missed out a few important points. Cheers, Richard _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
