On Wed, 2017-03-15 at 16:01 +0200, Ed Bartosh wrote: > On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 02:41:34PM +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote: > > On Wed, 2017-03-15 at 14:39 +0100, Patrick Ohly wrote: > > > On Wed, 2017-03-15 at 14:58 +0200, Ed Bartosh wrote: > > > > Regarding do_rm_work. It should not touch rootfs directories, I believe. > > > > > > It does, and it should by default because a rootfs can be quite large. > > If it's not going to be reused in another recipe, then it is worthwhile > > to remove it. > This is true unless we're going to use wic as a stand-alone tool, which some > people still do. > > > I should add that RM_WORK_EXCLUDE_ITEMS += "rootfs" can be used in image > > recipes which know that their rootfs is going to be needed elsewhere - > > it's just not the default. > > Isn't rootfs going to be rebuilt if one rootfs recipe depends on another one?
No, that's now how it works. Suppose there's a image-a:do_image_wic->image-b:do_rootfs task dependency. That dependency ensures that image-b:do_rootfs runs before image-a:do_image_wic. But it does not delay image-b:do_rm_work until image-a:do_image_wic is done. That could be fixed by also adding a image-b:do_rm_work->image-a:do_image_wic dependency. As I said, something that works out of the box for this use case would be nice... we can't expect developers to figure all of this out themselves. -- 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