On Fri, 2017-01-06 at 10:31 -0800, Randy Witt wrote: > > I'd rather see this be a new class independent from rm_work. People > can always in inherit both rm_work and rm_download.
I'm not sure whether it's worth supporting that mode: what would be the motivation for removing downloads, but not the work directory? I'm a bit worried about unexpected breakages when using just rm_download. > That being said, since this doesn't operate at the fetch level, i.e. > only remove things that were fetched as part of the current invocation > of bitbake, I don't see why the user couldn't just "rm -rf downloads" > themselves as part of the ci teardown. The motivation for rm_work_and_downloads.bbclass is the same as for rm_work.bbclass: reducing the required disk space *during* the build, to get builds to succeed which otherwise would run out of disk space. A "rm -rf downloads" at the end of the build doesn't help achieve that goal. -- Best Regards, Patrick Ohly The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter. -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
