All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Björn Stenberg" <bjst@enea.com>
To: Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>
Cc: bitbake-devel@lists.openembedded.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] bitbake: ensure -f causes dependent tasks to be re-run
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 21:35:39 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120619193539.GA2530@giant> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <dcf1fb0acb4bd3424cbb5f48cd62f4f994896c20.1340034255.git.paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com>

Paul Eggleton wrote:
> If -f is specified, force dependent tasks to be re-run next time. This
> works by changing the force behaviour so that instead of deleting the
> task's stamp, we write a "taint" file into the stamps directory, which
> will alter the taskhash randomly and thus trigger the task to re-run

I'm concerned about calling this -f/--force. I don't think I'm alone in interpreting -f / --force as "run all commands, even if the dependencies say we don't need to". I would expect the same output as the first time, with the same sstate checksum.

Would it be reasonable to call it something like -t/--taint instead?

-- 
Björn



  reply	other threads:[~2012-06-19 19:56 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-06-18 15:45 [PATCH 0/2] Signature-based rebuild improvements Paul Eggleton
2012-06-18 15:45 ` [PATCH 1/2] bitbake: ensure -f causes dependent tasks to be re-run Paul Eggleton
2012-06-19 19:35   ` Björn Stenberg [this message]
2012-06-19 23:50     ` Paul Eggleton
2012-06-20  7:45       ` Björn Stenberg
2012-06-20  7:55       ` Björn Stenberg
2012-06-20  8:38         ` Richard Purdie
2012-06-20  8:40         ` Paul Eggleton
2012-06-21 11:25           ` Björn Stenberg
2012-06-21 12:10             ` Paul Eggleton
2012-06-21 12:26               ` Björn Stenberg
2012-06-21 13:25                 ` Paul Eggleton
2012-06-21 13:41                 ` Björn Stenberg
2012-06-21 13:52                   ` Paul Eggleton
2012-06-21 14:44                 ` Richard Purdie
2012-06-18 15:45 ` [PATCH 2/2] bitbake: add -C option to invalidate a task and rebuild the target Paul Eggleton
2012-06-19 11:43 ` [PATCH 0/2] Signature-based rebuild improvements Jason Wessel
2012-06-19 13:02   ` Paul Eggleton
2012-06-19 17:20   ` Gopi - College
2012-06-20 18:11     ` p2020rdb - httpd+php Gopi - College
2012-06-20  8:42   ` [PATCH 0/2] Signature-based rebuild improvements Richard Purdie

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20120619193539.GA2530@giant \
    --to=bjst@enea.com \
    --cc=bitbake-devel@lists.openembedded.org \
    --cc=paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.