[Buildroot] Report from the Buildroot Developer Day

[Thomas De Schampheleire]

2011/11/18 Bjørn Forsman <bjorn.forsman at gmail.com>:
> 2011/11/18 Thomas De Schampheleire <patrickdepinguin+buildroot at gmail.com>:
>> 2011/11/17 Bjørn Forsman <bjorn.forsman at gmail.com>:
>>> On 17 November 2011 14:57, Thomas De Schampheleire
>>> <patrickdepinguin+buildroot at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 11:17 PM, Arnout Vandecappelle <arnout at mind.be> wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday 02 November 2011 15:03:49 Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
>>>>>> On the feature that is often discussed on the Buildroot list, and
>>>>>> which was on the agenda for this meeting was the general topic of
>>>>>> "package management". To summarize, the idea would be to add some
>>>>>> tracking of which Buildroot package installs what files, with the
>>>>>> goals of :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  * Being able to remove files installed by a package when this package
>>>>>>    gets unselected from the menuconfig ;
>>>>>
>>>>>  I completely agree with the final conclusion that this is almost impossible to
>>>>> achieve in a simple, consistent and reliable way.  Something that would help a
>>>>> lot for that purpose, however, is to have a 'make clean-target' target.  This
>>>>> would wipe $(TARGET_DIR) and remove all .stamp_target_installed files.  The
>>>>> next build will re-copy the skeleton and reinstall all packages, which should
>>>>> be sufficient and shouldn't take very long.  clean-staging would also be nice
>>>>> but is probably a bit more difficult to implement because of the toolchain.
>>>>
>>>> Just for the record: I like this idea...
>>>
>>> Here is a (old) patch that tries to do that:
>>>
>>> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.uclibc.buildroot/29333/
>>>
>>> I use it in one project and I like it very much. It would be nice if
>>> mainline Buildroot
>>> had this functionality.
>>
>> I propose you resubmit the patch again, but lined up with recent
>> buildroot. We'll have to see which comments come out of it, but at
>> least it'll be back on the list.
>
> Yes.
>
> Thomas P. had some concerns about the patch not handling staging-dir
> and I never got around fixing that.
>
> Should I resubmit even if the patch doesn't address the staging-dir issue?

In my opinion, yes, you should resubmit. This can fire up a fresh
discussion, which doesn't necessarily mean we have to include the
patch as-is.
You could refer to the original discussion somewhere in the patch
comments, so both are linked together.