From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from cpanel8.indieserve.net (cpanel8.indieserve.net [199.212.143.3]) by mx.groups.io with SMTP id smtpd.web10.7415.1620993132811235729 for ; Fri, 14 May 2021 04:52:13 -0700 Authentication-Results: mx.groups.io; dkim=missing; spf=pass (domain: crashcourse.ca, ip: 199.212.143.3, mailfrom: rpjday@crashcourse.ca) Received: from cpeac202e043973-cmac202e043970.sdns.net.rogers.com ([174.114.107.13]:41016 helo=fedora) by cpanel8.indieserve.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1lhWMV-0004Nu-La; Fri, 14 May 2021 07:52:11 -0400 Date: Fri, 14 May 2021 07:52:08 -0400 (EDT) From: "Robert P. J. Day" To: Konrad Weihmann cc: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [OE-core] is there an easy to prevent *creation* of some recipe's packages? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <15ece592-a5f2-5ca7-db9c-2fd614ea6eea@crashcourse.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OutGoing-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - cpanel8.indieserve.net X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - lists.openembedded.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - crashcourse.ca X-Get-Message-Sender-Via: cpanel8.indieserve.net: authenticated_id: rpjday+crashcourse.ca/only user confirmed/virtual account not confirmed X-Authenticated-Sender: cpanel8.indieserve.net: rpjday@crashcourse.ca X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 14 May 2021, Konrad Weihmann wrote: > On 14.05.21 13:16, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > > > pretty sure i know the answer to this one, but was asked the > > other day and wanted to make sure. in order to speed up the normal > > OE build, someone suggested bypassing the creation of packages > > that weren't going to be relevant, such as -dev, -doc and so on -- > > the idea was that that could make a significant difference in > > build time. > > I pretty much doubt it will speed up anything. If for instance the > -dev package will be removed from PACKAGES it is very likely that > the files of that package will end up in the base package ${PN}, > which results in larger target packages that need to be installed > (and potentially further RDEPENDS) > > Furthermore this will break DEPENDS for recipes that do rely on the > -dev package - so chances are high that this will break (or > magically change) something further down the line. > > One thing that you can do to speed up the build process in terms of > packaging time is to delete any **really** not needed files in a > do_install_append, if no proper configuration option (cmake flag, > make flag, PACKAGECONFIG) does exist which prevents the creation of > these files in the first place. > > I would recommend not to mess with the packaging defaults for > reasons such as speeding things up - as this is IMHO addressing the > issue at the wrong end - just make sure the files in /image > won't get created that's the general idea i was trying to get across (so let's confirm that i was speaking accurately). i suggested that the majority of time spent in processing a recipe was doing all the fetching and unpacking and patching and (mostly) compiling, the end result of which was to populate that recipe's WORKDIR/image directory, at which time the packaging step took over. so unless one wanted to dangerously mangle the package definitions, if it ended up in ${D}, it was going to get packaged, correct? so unless one wanted to go back and mess with the recipe's build configuration to, perhaps, not generate some artifacts, those packages were going to be built, whether they were subsequently installed or not. so short of mangling each recipe file to change its configuration, just leave it alone as the payoff just isn't worth it. sound about right? rday