Openmoko build infrastructure questions

[Tilman Baumann]

Andy Green wrote:

> | It guarantees just nothing. You could throw non compliant code in a srpm
> | as much as you could commit it in the source dir of any bitbake package.
> 
> Tilman I read this part by holding my laptop up to a mirror to fool my
> head explosion protection, some blood came out of one ear, but otherwise
> I am OK.  After that I lay down for a bit and didn't dare read the rest.
> 
> Source packages typically contain an upstream tarball, a patchset and
> the spec file used to control the build.  In fact everything to make the
> binary except the build tools like compiler. 

How would this be different from bitbake?
Maybe i'm missing something here.

> Yes you can mess it up,
> but typically you don't mess it up and the source package is everything
> you needed to regenerate the binary, created at the time the binary was
> created.  To the point you can delete your build tree of it and the SRPM
> is your "compressed backup".  It's as good as an insurance you can get
> against license violation and capability to "give what you used".

How should the information "I used _this_ CVS revision (or whatever 
tool) in my source tree. Look there is everything i used." be less valuable?

Regards
  Tilman