On Fri, 2011-03-11 at 12:04 +0100, Steffen Sledz wrote:
> which occurred sometimes depending on build order (not in clean
> package only builds).
I would like to raise awareness of the underlying problem here.
The current dependency/staging model of OE basically has this feature
that a build can
On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 10:08:37AM +0100, Esben Haabendal wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-03-11 at 12:04 +0100, Steffen Sledz wrote:
> > which occurred sometimes depending on build order (not in clean
> > package only builds).
>
> I would like to raise awareness of the underlying problem here.
>
> The curr
On 03/15/2011 07:38 PM, Esben Haabendal wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-03-11 at 12:04 +0100, Steffen Sledz wrote:
>> which occurred sometimes depending on build order (not in clean
>> package only builds).
>
> I would like to raise awareness of the underlying problem here.
>
> The current dependency/stagi
On Tue, 2011-03-15 at 10:08 +0100, Esben Haabendal wrote:
> The current dependency/staging model of OE basically has this feature
> that a build can be influenced not only by it's own dependencies, but
> also what has been build before it (or not).
>
> I strongly believe that this has to be fixed
On Thu, 2011-03-17 at 11:18 +, Phil Blundell wrote:
>
> > I am still very much interested in discussing how to move this
> > technology from OE-lite to OE, but as it impacts all recipe metadata
> > (build dependencies has to be redefined), OE community at a large
> really
> > needs to value th
On 17/03/2011 14:43, Esben Haabendal wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-03-17 at 11:18 +, Phil Blundell wrote:
>>> I am still very much interested in discussing how to move this
>>> technology from OE-lite to OE, but as it impacts all recipe metadata
>>> (build dependencies has to be redefined), OE communit
On Thu, 2011-03-17 at 15:43 +0100, Esben Haabendal wrote:
> Is OE really in a position to permantly settle for something suboptimal
> in such a central area?
No, but rejecting the big bang doesn't mean that we can't make the
change; it just means that we need to find a way to make the old and new
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 17-03-11 15:52, Graeme Gregory wrote:
> On 17/03/2011 14:43, Esben Haabendal wrote:
>> On Thu, 2011-03-17 at 11:18 +, Phil Blundell wrote:
I am still very much interested in discussing how to move this
technology from OE-lite to OE, bu
On Thu, 2011-03-17 at 15:07 +, Phil Blundell wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-03-17 at 15:43 +0100, Esben Haabendal wrote:
> > Is OE really in a position to permantly settle for something suboptimal
> > in such a central area?
>
> No, but rejecting the big bang doesn't mean that we can't make the
> chang
On Thu, 2011-03-17 at 18:52 +0100, Esben Haabendal wrote:
> Well, it might be possible to minimize the disruption for a transitional
> period by carefully specifying some catch-all build-time package
> dependencies pulling in all packages for recipes not ported yet.
Yes, that's the sort of thing I
On Thu, 2011-03-17 at 18:05 +, Phil Blundell wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-03-17 at 18:52 +0100, Esben Haabendal wrote:
> > Well, it might be possible to minimize the disruption for a transitional
> > period by carefully specifying some catch-all build-time package
> > dependencies pulling in all packa
On Thu, 2011-03-17 at 20:58 +0100, Esben Haabendal wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-03-17 at 18:05 +, Phil Blundell wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-03-17 at 18:52 +0100, Esben Haabendal wrote:
> > > Well, it might be possible to minimize the disruption for a transitional
> > > period by carefully specifying some
On Thu, 2011-03-17 at 21:00 +, Phil Blundell wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-03-17 at 20:58 +0100, Esben Haabendal wrote:
> > There is a number of ways that I believe package based build
> > dependencies are better than recipe based.
> >
> > a) It is possible to depend on parts of a recipe, which fx. is
On Fri, 2011-03-18 at 06:29 +0100, Esben Haabendal wrote:
> Yes, I get your point. You could of-course still specify build
> dependencies using recipe names/provides, and then just unpack all
> target packages build by that recipe.
>
> This would give you the major part of the KISS win I see, exc
On Thu, 2011-03-17 at 20:58 +0100, Esben Haabendal wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-03-17 at 18:05 +, Phil Blundell wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-03-17 at 18:52 +0100, Esben Haabendal wrote:
> > > Well, it might be possible to minimize the disruption for a transitional
> > > period by carefully specifying some
15 matches
Mail list logo
