[oe] bitbake vs incremental builds
rpurdie at rpsys.net
Thu Jun 19 09:58:22 CEST 2008
On Wed, 2008-06-18 at 15:40 -0700, Rich Pixley wrote:
> If C depends on B depends on A...
> A first build will build A, B, C.
> A second build will build nothing since nothing has changed. (this is
> correct behavior).
> However, if I change A and rebuild, only A will be rebuilt, not B or C.
> This is a nuisance for developers who are using bitbake as a build
> system. It's a problem for continuous build systems since they must
> necessarily build everything over from source in order to test whether
> builds work.
> I'm thinking that it should be fairly easy to adjust which recipe+task
> pairs are scheduled for execution by looking not only at stamp file
> existence, but also at the comparative difference in stamp file times.
> If the stamp file for A is more recent than the stamp file for B, then B
> needs to be scheduled for execution as does C.
> Does anyone know of any reason why this cannot or should not be done?
It wasn't done for a long time simply because nobody had taken the time
to implement it. It has however recently been implemented, simply set:
BB_STAMP_POLICY = "full"
BB_STAMP_POLICY = "whitelist"
Whitelist allows you to exempt certain packages from stamp checking, see
packaged-staging.bbclass for an example.
More information about the Openembedded-devel