On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 10:09 -0700, Chris Larson wrote: > To summarize, I propose the creation of an archive/package which acts as the > primary artifact to come out of the build of a recipe. By capturing *all* > output of a recipe into a single place, we reduce confusion and make things > easier to track. Every subsequent task by the recipe (or other recipes) > will go based on this archive (or cached, extracted contents of this > archive, for performance). Builds from cached binaries would operate based > on this archive, so that the execution of the subsequent tasks would be > identical between the prebuilt and from scratch cases, and it makes it clear > that this is not just "packaged staging" in concept or intent.
Yes, this is pretty much what I have been thinking of as well. I think the only real difference between what you have suggested here and what I have had mind is that I was originally planning to re-use the existing binary package output (i.e. what you get from do_package) to populate the staging directory. The nice thing about that approach is that it guarantees that you will get the same result for an in-tree OE build compared to an on-target build against the installed -dev packages, which would help to avoid some of the issues we have had in the past with the -dev packages being defective through lack of testing. Indeed, one of the main motivations for the work that I have been doing on the toolchain-desuck branch is to remove the special-casing of the toolchain recipes so that they just generate output packages which you can then install in the same way as anything else. Introducing a new archive format which captures the entirety of the build output up to and including do_install is indeed quite tempting as well, though. p. _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
