Richard Purdie <[email protected]> writes: > On Fri, 2011-03-18 at 13:14 +0100, Esben Haabendal wrote: >> By doing it this way, I don't think we are getting much closer to the >> second step (package-based build-time dependencies). The OE-lite >> implementation of per-recipe staging builds on top of package-based >> build-time dependencies, so to do it the other way around, would imply >> taking the sstate concept and extend it to do per-recipe sysroots. >> After that, I believe you have exactly the same amount of development >> left to get where OE-lite is in respect to package-based build-time >> depencies and per-recipe staging. >> >> As I see it, package-based build-time dependencies practically obsoletes >> sstate. > > This is where I think you misunderstand why sstate has been written and > what its role is.
Please note my use of "practically", which should have been quoted or something... > Its a generic abstraction of taking the output from a task, saving it > away somewhere and then being able to reuse a prebuilt version of it. I know. And this is clearly different to what package-based build-time dependencies give. Without sstate, you will not be able to reuse prebuilt versions of any random task. You can only reuse prebuilt versions of packages (ie. do_package tasks). In practice, I believe that is sufficient for most needs. But I don't see any showstoppers for using something sstate together with package-based build-time dependencies. I am just saying that what I believes is the most important value of sstate, more robus builds, is already provided the package-based build-time dependencies. > There is no dependency on a package manager, package format or special > dependency formats. sstate simply looks for a prebuilt version (matching > a checksum), uses it if present, otherwise builds from "scratch". > >> > I was thinking of situations like the Debian package autonamer, ie the >> > thing that causes glibc-dev to come out named "libc6-dev.ipk" or similar >> > depending on the soname of the library that was built. It seems like >> > this would be a bit awkward to deal with if your dependencies were >> > specified purely in terms of output packages. >> >> As OE-lite is not OE, we are currently not supporting such type of >> package renaming. Let's leave that to Debian guys to fight with ;-) > > What other features are you not supporting? Are you prepared to think > about them or is that someone else's problem? I am not sure what direction you are trying to push the discussion now. I am not prepared to single-handedly (without a large $$$ sponsor) take over complete responsibility for all of OE. I am though prepared to think about them, and also prepared to work with the OE community to find good solution to everybody else's problems. I don't think it is totally fair to imply that I am being completely ignorant to other people's problems. I know we are ignoring a lot of OE features in OE-lite, but that is the reason it is done as OE-lite and not in OE. I did not have time and manpower to implement what I needed in the timeframes I had without ignoring those features. I am though now approach you (OE community) trying to find out if we can find a way to get some of the work done in OE-lite back to OE, just as you have done several times with features developed in Poky going back to OE. Talking about that, with Poky being much more directly coupled with OE, where will new features be developed in the future? This discussion seems to indicate that it is not going to be in OE as such. /Esben _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
