Gary,
Thank you. It seems the bitbake -C option was indeed what I wanted.
And researching it helped fill in some of the gaps in my understanding.
Thanks,
Brian
On 1/16/2013 11:09 AM, Gary Thomas wrote:
On 2013-01-16 12:02, Brian Smucker wrote:
Hello all,
I'm not sure if my prior question was unclear or if the question was
something nobody knows the answer to.
I think there's probably a simple answer, but maybe not.
So the background is this: A poky/danny setup where I have
previously-compiled core-image-minimal.
I force busybox to be recompiled: bitbake -c -f compile busybox
I clean core-image-minimal: bitbake -c -f cleansstate core-image-minimal
I rebuild the core image: bitbake core-image-minimal
Result: The busybox that is included in the core-image rootfs is a
busybox that was compiled earlier. It has an earlier timestamp.
Question: How do I force the newly-compiled busybox to be included
in the core-image rootfs, so that the rootfs generation process does
not retrieve some stale version of busybox
from a cache somewhere? (Without deleting the tmp directory. I know
that works.)
There's got to be a simple answer.
Thanks,
Brian
ps. This is merely an interim way to test a particular permutation
of the busybox config. I know how to make a recipe using bbappend and
a new defconfig for busybox. But I want
to do a series of quick-and-dirty tests with various busybox config
options.
The problem is that your rebuild of busybox only ran the compile step,
not any of the install or packaging steps.
Thankfully there is a new bitbake option which makes this much easier.
See if this does what you want:
% bitbake busybox -C compile
% bitbake core-image-minimal
_______________________________________________
yocto mailing list
yocto@yoctoproject.org
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
