On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 02:49:53PM +0200, Koen Kooi wrote: > Hi, > > These might not be the appropiate lists, but I might reach a few of the > culprits. Over the years people have been doing 'apt get install bitbake' or > 'make install' to put bitbake into /usr/bin and after a few minutes to get on > irc/email/etc to complain that everything is suddenly broken. There are > checks for bitbake versions in the metadata, but it can (and will!) still > break with due to python path nastiness. > > So to every person packaging bitbake for their distro: stop doing that! > > If someone has a better suggestion to avoid this problem (more documentation > doesn't work), please speak up.
I was using bitbake from Gentoo for long time (they provide also live ebuilds) and it worked fine. I was using packaged version mostly to control which version gets installed to shr-chroot (sometimes with extra patches, sometimes holding on older version until shr metadata were compatible). Now I switched back to bitbake checkout with revision locked by setup scripts to make life easier for people using my setup scripts but without shr-chroot option. So I don't mind if people stop doing bitbake packages :). Cheers, -- Martin 'JaMa' Jansa jabber: martin.ja...@gmail.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
