[oe] TSC meeting minutes 20100204

[Frans Meulenbroeks]

2010/2/7 Koen Kooi <k.kooi at student.utwente.nl>:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 07-02-10 17:21, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
>
>> The last two items discussed were new-style staging and packaged
>> staging. The TSC would like to *strongly* encourage people to move their
>> recipes to new style staging. If you are using packaged-staging with a
>> big TMPDIR (e.g. a few machines with big images built) legacy staging
>> will easily take more than 15 minutes per recipe because it scans
>> through the complete staging looking for changes.
>>
>>> Maybe I missed a thing, but can someone provide a pointer to how a
>>> good recipe with new style staging  should look like?
>>> I'll happily modify the recipes I touch regularly, but don't exactly
>>> know what to do.
>
> New-style staging means it has no do_stage method defined anymore (and
> not getting one thru things like autotools_stage.bbclass as well).
> It will re-use the output of do_install() to populate staging and run QA
> checks on.
>
> You can check it building it and and looking for messages like "Legacy
> staging enabled", which would tell you it's still using the old, slow
> method.
>
> regards,
>
> Koen

Did a quick grep, there are still some 1400+ recipes that have a
do_stage. Now some of them are older versions (e.g. there are 6
xorg-lib/pixman recipes).
I'm more than happy to do my part of the cleaning but....
Almost most of the packages are things I don't know too much about.
What I can do (with packaged staging) remove do_stage, build, build a
package that depends on it and if that builds commit my work. Is that
considered to be good enough?

Frans