From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-it0-f52.google.com (mail-it0-f52.google.com [209.85.214.52]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 459016AC3C for ; Tue, 16 May 2017 08:21:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-it0-f52.google.com with SMTP id c15so57703571ith.0 for ; Tue, 16 May 2017 01:21:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=intel-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to:references :organization:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=HGMKjsbLWJymLjVa1yTa+Ah0rQqPCWFuyGBsCF7lhqc=; b=uI4jkocVm79I+v0joeeYhyxNednYkJrL3fONRYKz/pW0Sj8t+0/PvI4OvdbhyGZZWW OJsneTFTIgKvhzfbn/ITSiFCOObq8uWut1D81NaZLgOiSVwIA/su6iMa4FHGFPbKVKLA BZSpm9DyT7WsQ7rne4btPK/VoFtktrIA+hJU0l0PP8J64YZo3fjo4s2oGu+Z/Xf9JVdA Ox1OVpNvek4jkexLBX6K14DXhXP+XjJ9p2vLH/xteui3BkTA4QyRPkK6z91gUkXyNIvG Le8WU9Ah/UYPDHBmTAjOK+BTs7nNBjZ3gXr015+iM+yPUuMS05M6jCFvRajOdJai917R yM1Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to :references:organization:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=HGMKjsbLWJymLjVa1yTa+Ah0rQqPCWFuyGBsCF7lhqc=; b=jGCBQN3Ja2rUl1BPtHkDRAYJgHdr+BHID2lCLf7Ai8ECOW7YUX+kGCiebYnj+FSh5Y Lxgn102KvQW+BUFgAZj15CZMVolpDO3HrYjcPgs0IJmLZ9eBh6IbN+545ldBxPkpU34e qYmb40epz9Tvkl7U631moFmNxunWBu8aVyh4/mzAqkEuO7rkI272KMyBDw6U76httzA0 MtotlXJlnKSTGO8QiK5dxzxYcwTbqjG+92oktUwL9n9LbAbne1pUabULZjaHjXW0mVgh B8aoMRibqmOzNUIwoMnLjRpSWV3SRiOSDBCRd9h8ni17BHD9Gaf5FXZLQ+T6Or02+X5i qBdw== X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcCkqAi0u1aXBalALlQy+ENvdgZph/1JviIimVibfrTb0+JkJp/G ktXugsXQcupbwsmKn0E= X-Received: by 10.36.209.199 with SMTP id w190mr9766111itg.68.1494922916225; Tue, 16 May 2017 01:21:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pohly-mobl1 (p5DE8EB79.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [93.232.235.121]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p196sm5733522itb.22.2017.05.16.01.21.54 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 16 May 2017 01:21:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <1494922912.1179.306.camel@intel.com> From: Patrick Ohly To: Mike Looijmans Date: Tue, 16 May 2017 10:21:52 +0200 In-Reply-To: <79e18217-d4ed-8356-9532-7da63a420d6f@topic.nl> References: <79e18217-d4ed-8356-9532-7da63a420d6f@topic.nl> Organization: Intel GmbH, Dornacher Strasse 1, D-85622 Feldkirchen/Munich X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.9-1+b1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/6] development vs. production builds X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 May 2017 08:21:56 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Tue, 2017-05-16 at 09:35 +0200, Mike Looijmans wrote: > This seems to assume that every project is similar and that develop vs > production is something well defined. Well, it's not. > > I for one would welcome the demise of debug-tweaks. It's an option that > enforces one of two policies that may both be wrong. If that's an option, then I'm also for it, and I don't mind dropping the "debug-build" distro feature. > While the "development/production" switch may be great for some projects, > it'll make things only more complicated for others while gaining nothing above > what we have now. What about the approach I outlined in my reponse to Richard, where we just introduce the IMAGE_MODE mechanism in OE-core without defining specific modes? Would you find that useful? -- 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.