Hi Ross,
Thanks for your reply, please see my comments inline.
On 02/27/2014 09:05 PM, Burton, Ross wrote:
Hi Robert,
Having a look at this and playing with my own toy archiver makes me
think that this shouldn't be using the postfuncs at all.
Yes, I gree as we had talked.
The main task,
Hi Robert,
Having a look at this and playing with my own toy archiver makes me
think that this shouldn't be using the postfuncs at all.
The main task, deploy_archives, should depend on the subtasks that it
needs and be simply ordered before do_build. I see that your code
does this but changes it
On 02/25/2014 08:40 PM, Burton, Ross wrote:
Hi,
One point: enabling the archiver causes the stamps for various steps
to change (fetch, configure, package: wherever it hooks) which means a
full rebuild. Can the archiver hide itself from the stamps so this
doesn't happen?
This appears to be so
Hi,
One point: enabling the archiver causes the stamps for various steps
to change (fetch, configure, package: wherever it hooks) which means a
full rebuild. Can the archiver hide itself from the stamps so this
doesn't happen?
This appears to be some of the work required:
+do_configure[vardepse
=== V2:
* Fix the warning between different machines which is reported by Martin
* Fix the error when the archiver.bbclass is not inherited but
ARCHIVER_MODE[type] = "srpm" is set, reported by Ross.
* Fix the archiving for gcc staff which uses the shared source according
to the recently changes
