I took 5 of our patches and submitted to upstream gcc. This highlighted that
patches 0026 and 0018 should be merged together and some tweaks were made to
try and make it acceptable to upstream. The other patches have their headers
updated to match what was submitted.
The libstdc++ option patch was
Please merge these changes.
Thanks,
Anuj
The following changes since commit 366070c476405a1f49e22a02c21fd99fc0ec76d9:
scriptutils.py: Add check before deleting path (2021-10-04 10:46:18 +0800)
are available in the Git repository at:
git://push.openembedded.org/openembedded-core-contrib st
On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 4:26 PM Richard Purdie
wrote:
>
> This patch has headers as if it were submitted upstream but I can't find any
> record of it. I did try tests with it removed, building the referenced
> testsuite
> files with -Werror and it all works just fine with no warnings or errors
>
On 10/28/21 2:53 PM, Oleksandr Kravchuk wrote:
> On 28/10/2021 23:45, akuster808 wrote:
>> Oleksandr,
>>
>>
>> On 10/28/21 11:43 AM, Oleksandr Kravchuk wrote:
>>> This dirty work-in-progress patch is an open call for anyone interested
>>> to help with its testing.
>> What may get more folks parti
This patch has headers as if it were submitted upstream but I can't find any
record of it. I did try tests with it removed, building the referenced testsuite
files with -Werror and it all works just fine with no warnings or errors (tested
on MACHINE=qemux86). I suspect this was fixed in gcc itself
We should default to xz or zstd instead of gz, pick xz for now as it is more
tested.
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie
---
meta/classes/archiver.bbclass | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/meta/classes/archiver.bbclass b/meta/classes/archiver.bbclass
index 411d459ed0
On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 2:38 PM Alexandre Belloni <
alexandre.bell...@bootlin.com> wrote:
> Hey Khem,
>
> I believe this is the cause of:
>
>
> https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/typhoon/#/builders/45/builds/4268/steps/12/logs/stdio
>
> https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/typhoon/#/builders/45/
On 28/10/2021 23:45, akuster808 wrote:
Oleksandr,
On 10/28/21 11:43 AM, Oleksandr Kravchuk wrote:
This dirty work-in-progress patch is an open call for anyone interested
to help with its testing.
What may get more folks participating in testing this is if you push
your changes to git.openembe
Oleksandr,
On 10/28/21 11:43 AM, Oleksandr Kravchuk wrote:
> This dirty work-in-progress patch is an open call for anyone interested
> to help with its testing.
What may get more folks participating in testing this is if you push
your changes to git.openembedded.org/openembedded-core-contrib. Th
Hey Khem,
I believe this is the cause of:
https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/typhoon/#/builders/45/builds/4268/steps/12/logs/stdio
https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/typhoon/#/builders/45/builds/4266/steps/12/logs/stdio
https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/typhoon/#/builders/64/builds/4252/st
Signed-off-by: Oleksandr Kravchuk
---
...ent_2.27.0.bb => python3-google-api-python-client_2.28.0.bb} | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
rename
meta-python/recipes-devtools/python/{python3-google-api-python-client_2.27.0.bb
=> python3-google-api-python-client_2.28.0.bb} (86%
Signed-off-by: Oleksandr Kravchuk
---
...oogle-api-core_2.1.1.bb => python3-google-api-core_2.2.0.bb} | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
rename meta-python/recipes-devtools/python/{python3-google-api-core_2.1.1.bb
=> python3-google-api-core_2.2.0.bb} (87%)
diff --git
a/meta
Signed-off-by: Oleksandr Kravchuk
---
.../{python3-pybind11_2.7.0.bb => python3-pybind11_2.8.1.bb}| 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
rename meta-python/recipes-devtools/python/{python3-pybind11_2.7.0.bb =>
python3-pybind11_2.8.1.bb} (93%)
diff --git a/meta-python/recipes
Signed-off-by: Oleksandr Kravchuk
---
.../{python3-imageio_2.9.0.bb => python3-imageio_2.10.1.bb}| 3 +--
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
rename meta-python/recipes-devtools/python/{python3-imageio_2.9.0.bb =>
python3-imageio_2.10.1.bb} (73%)
diff --git a/meta-python/recipes
Signed-off-by: Oleksandr Kravchuk
---
.../{python3-protobuf_3.18.1.bb => python3-protobuf_3.19.0.bb} | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
rename meta-python/recipes-devtools/python/{python3-protobuf_3.18.1.bb =>
python3-protobuf_3.19.0.bb} (92%)
diff --git a/meta-python/recip
Signed-off-by: Oleksandr Kravchuk
---
.../protobuf/{protobuf_3.18.0.bb => protobuf_3.19.0.bb} | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
rename meta-oe/recipes-devtools/protobuf/{protobuf_3.18.0.bb =>
protobuf_3.19.0.bb} (98%)
diff --git a/meta-oe/recipes-devtools/protobuf
On Thu, 2021-10-28 at 08:47 -1000, Steve Sakoman wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 10:41 PM Jose Quaresma
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > There are any plans or is it possible to backport the SBOM/SPDX to the
> > dunfell branch?
>
> I'm going to yield to Saul as to whether he thinks this is
>
On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 10:41 PM Jose Quaresma wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> There are any plans or is it possible to backport the SBOM/SPDX to the
> dunfell branch?
I'm going to yield to Saul as to whether he thinks this is
desirable/possible or not.
Steve
> Doing a quick look on it I see that it is
This dirty work-in-progress patch is an open call for anyone interested
to help with its testing.
Signed-off-by: Oleksandr Kravchuk
---
.../xorg-xserver/xserver-xorg.inc | 62 ---
...-duplicate-definitions-of-IOPortBase.patch | 45 --
...probing-a-non-PCI-
This library is a dependancy of xserver-xorg 21.1.0.
Signed-off-by: Oleksandr Kravchuk
---
meta/conf/distro/include/maintainers.inc | 1 +
.../xorg-lib/libxcvt_0.1.1.bb | 19 +++
2 files changed, 20 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 meta/recipes-graphics/xor
On 28/10/2021 20:37, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
Unfortunately, this fails with:
The following recipes do not have a maintainer assigned to them. Please add an
entry to meta/conf/distro/include/maintainers.inc file.
libxcvt
(/home/pokybuild/yocto-worker/oe-selftest-centos/build/meta/recipes-graph
Unfortunately, this fails with:
The following recipes do not have a maintainer assigned to them. Please add an
entry to meta/conf/distro/include/maintainers.inc file.
libxcvt
(/home/pokybuild/yocto-worker/oe-selftest-centos/build/meta/recipes-graphics/xorg-lib/libxcvt_0.1.1.bb)
On 27/10/2021 2
The following changes since commit 62cdc20a2186ecd54d3a7131ec8f6937aa0229ed:
uninative: Upgrade to 3.4 (2021-10-25 10:23:54 +0100)
are available in the Git repository at:
git://git.openembedded.org/openembedded-core-contrib stable/dunfell-next
http://cgit.openembedded.org/openembedded-cor
> -Original Message-
> From: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org c...@lists.openembedded.org> On Behalf Of Ross Burton
> Sent: den 2 september 2021 18:25
> To: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> Subject: [OE-core] [PATCH 11/14] libx11-compose-data: set precise BSD
> license
>
Hi Peter,
This seems to fail on the AB:
https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/typhoon/#/builders/15/builds/4544/steps/11/logs/stdio
The same failure is seen in other builds too.
On 27/10/2021 20:05:22+0200, Peter Kjellerstedt wrote:
> The empty-dirs QA check verifies that all directories specif
Unfortunately from what I just checked we cannot merge license manifests
because new manifest creation would require additional package sstate-cache
manifests (to get package contents) or to use package manager to get FILES
contect. That's also not really correct, since in license.manifest we don't
This patch introduces new recipe - namely 'glibc-tests', which
builds and installs time related (to check if Y2038 support works) glibc
test suite to OE/Yocto built image.
It reuses code from already available 'glibc-testsuite' recipe,
which is run with 'bitbake glibc-testsuite -c check' and uses
On Thu, 2021-10-28 at 09:22 +0100, Martyn Welch wrote:
> On Wed, 2021-10-27 at 20:05 +0200, Peter Kjellerstedt wrote:
> > The empty-dirs QA check verifies that all directories specified in
> > QA_EMPTY_DIRS are empty. It is possible to specify why a directory is
> > expected to be empty by defining
From: Teoh Jay Shen
Changed the following line from:
[drm] Cannot find any crtc or sizes - going 1024x768 > [drm] Cannot find
any crtc or sizes
This will expand the coverage of the failure to also cover the case when
fallback size is not set.
Signed-off-by: Teoh Jay Shen
---
meta/lib/o
Hi Alex, you're right, sorry I get confused with the question just now. Yes,
the entire string doesn't have to match, it's enough if the string is part of
the error message. I will go ahead and send out a v2 patch.
Thanks,
Jay
From: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
On Behalf Of Alexan
Hi Alex,
you're right, sorry I get confused with the question just now. Yes, the entire
string doesn't have to match, it's enough if the string is part of the error
message. I will go ahead and send out a v2 patch.
Thanks,
Jay
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to th
I think the whole line doesn't have to match, it's enough if the string is
in it somewhere. You can verify by making the message even shorter, and
checking that it still works.
Alex
On Thu, 28 Oct 2021 at 12:15, Teoh, Jay Shen
wrote:
> "[drm] Cannot find any crtc or sizes",
> "[drm] Cannot find
On Thu, 2021-10-28 at 02:58 -0700, Pgowda wrote:
> CVE: CVE-2015-3530
Did you mean CVE-2021-3530 here and in the patches below as well?
Thanks,
Anuj
> Upstream-Status:
> Backport[https://sourceware.org/git/?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=commit;h=25162c795b1a2becf936bb3581d86a307ea491eb
> ]
> Upstream-St
>> Did you mean CVE-2021-3530 here and in the patches below as well?
Should I have it in the commit message or in the patches?
Thanks,
Naveen
On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 3:32 PM Mittal, Anuj wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2021-10-28 at 02:58 -0700, Pgowda wrote:
> > CVE: CVE-2015-3530
>
> Did you mean CVE-2021
"[drm] Cannot find any crtc or sizes",
"[drm] Cannot find any crtc or sizes - going 1024x768",
Both lines are covering difference case, the first line covers the case when no
fallback size is set, and second line covers the case when fallback size is set.
Thanks,
Jay
From: Alexander Kanavin
Se
But then you can remove the previous line, right?
Alex
On Thu, 28 Oct 2021 at 12:08, Teoh, Jay Shen
wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Khem Raj
> > Sent: Thursday, 28 October, 2021 12:17 AM
> > To: Jose Quaresma
> > Cc: Teoh, Jay Shen ; OE-core > c...@lists.openembedded.org>
On Thu, 2021-10-28 at 11:55 +0200, Alexander Kanavin wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Oct 2021 at 20:00, Richard Purdie
> wrote:
> > Do you know why we wouldn't see this issue on the autobuilder tests?
> >
> > Also, do you plan to submit something upstream? Has this been discussed with
> > them? I'm starting
> -Original Message-
> From: Khem Raj
> Sent: Thursday, 28 October, 2021 12:17 AM
> To: Jose Quaresma
> Cc: Teoh, Jay Shen ; OE-core c...@lists.openembedded.org>
> Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] oeqa/runtime/parselogs: whitelist drm failure
> in
> common errors list
>
> On Wed, Oct 2
Hi Anuj,
Thanks for checking the patch and providing your comments.
>> This needs a CVE tag, your Signed-off-by and Upstream-Status.
Done.
>> Also, it looks like this will break MinGW builds and would also need:
Added.
Will check for the CVE tags and other indentations properly.
Please find the
CVE: CVE-2015-3530
Upstream-Status:
Backport[https://sourceware.org/git/?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=commit;h=25162c795b1a2becf936bb3581d86a307ea491eb]
Upstream-Status:
Backport[https://sourceware.org/git/?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=commit;h=999566402e3]
Signed-off-by: Pgowda
---
.../binutils/binutils-2.36
On Wed, 27 Oct 2021 at 20:00, Richard Purdie <
richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> Do you know why we wouldn't see this issue on the autobuilder tests?
>
> Also, do you plan to submit something upstream? Has this been discussed
> with
> them? I'm starting to become reluctant to taking pat
Khem Raj escreveu no dia quarta, 27/10/2021 à(s) 17:17:
> On Wed, Oct 27, 2021 at 2:24 AM Jose Quaresma
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Teoh, Jay Shen escreveu no dia quarta,
> 27/10/2021 à(s) 10:12:
> >>
> >> From: Teoh Jay Shen
> >>
> >> Add the following line to common_errors list.
> >>
> >> [dr
On Wed, 2021-10-27 at 20:05 +0200, Peter Kjellerstedt wrote:
> The empty-dirs QA check verifies that all directories specified in
> QA_EMPTY_DIRS are empty. It is possible to specify why a directory is
> expected to be empty by defining QA_EMPTY_DIRS_RECOMMENDATION:,
> which will then be included i
From: Ross Burton
If a recipe applies patches which are in machine-specific override
directories, devtool will fail to fetch the patches that don't match the
default configuration. For example where there are patches at
qemux86/x86.patch and qemuarm/arm.patch:
SRC_URI = "file://source"
SRC_URI_
Hi Alexandre,
> Hello,
>
> I'm sorry for the late reply but this still failed on the AB:
>
> https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/typhoon/#/builders/81/builds/2719/steps/11/logs/stdio
>
Thanks for the info. I will fix it and submit v3.
> On 19/10/2021 14:43:00+0200, ?ukasz Majewski wrote:
> >
45 matches
Mail list logo
