On 09/05/2014 05:10 AM, Randy MacLeod wrote:
On 14-09-01 11:18 AM, Robert Yang wrote:
Bash scripts:
packages-split/sdparm/usr/bin/sas_disk_blink:#!/bin/bash
packages-split/sdparm/usr/bin/scsi_ch_swp:#!/bin/bash
Signed-off-by: Robert Yang
---
meta-oe/recipes-support/sdparm/sdparm_1.08.bb |
On 14-09-01 11:18 AM, Robert Yang wrote:
Bash scripts:
packages-split/sdparm/usr/bin/sas_disk_blink:#!/bin/bash
packages-split/sdparm/usr/bin/scsi_ch_swp:#!/bin/bash
Signed-off-by: Robert Yang
---
meta-oe/recipes-support/sdparm/sdparm_1.08.bb |2 ++
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
diff
On 09/04/2014 09:26 AM, Burton, Ross wrote:
On 4 September 2014 16:41, akuster808 wrote:
This is the same reason why I have split a bb into two parts when I submit
upgrades. I feel it makes reviewing easier the next time a package gets
upgraded. Trying to find the actual changes between a fil
On Monday, September 1, 2014, Andrea Adami wrote:
> For the recipes built with klcc-cross it is necessary to
> pass --sysroot otherwise we default to the one encoded in gcc-cross which
> actually is the 'first one' built.
> The issue was revealed when building for armv4 after having built for
> a
On 4 September 2014 18:54, Philip Balister wrote:
> The qwt recipe uses an include file and two bb files for qt versus
> qt-embedded builds. I do not know if this is wise, but it is a case not
> mentioned here.
That seems a perfectly legitimate use of an inc as it's factoring out
common code.
Ro
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 4:10 AM, Switesh Fulpagare
wrote:
> Can you please look at this post? I think it is problem with 'git://
> qt.gitorious.org/qt/qtwayland.git
I just sent a patch fixing it; please try it.
--
Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems
http://www.ossystems.com.
This is to fix the fetcher failure as the "stable" branch has been
removed. We does not change the revision we are using so this is
a safe change.
Signed-off-by: Otavio Salvador
---
recipes-qt/qt5/qtwayland_git.bb | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/recipes-qt/qt5/qtwayland_git.b
On 09/04/2014 01:29 PM, Andreas Müller wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 6:34 PM, Burton, Ross wrote:
>> On 4 September 2014 15:12, Burton, Ross wrote:
>>> Quick question of style for the community to bikeshed on: in the
>>> general case should recipes be split into foo_1.2.bb and foo.inc, or
>>>
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 6:34 PM, Burton, Ross wrote:
> On 4 September 2014 15:12, Burton, Ross wrote:
>> Quick question of style for the community to bikeshed on: in the
>> general case should recipes be split into foo_1.2.bb and foo.inc, or
>> should they only split to bb/inc if there are multip
On 4 September 2014 15:12, Burton, Ross wrote:
> Quick question of style for the community to bikeshed on: in the
> general case should recipes be split into foo_1.2.bb and foo.inc, or
> should they only split to bb/inc if there are multiple versions and
> generally there should just be foo_1.2.b
On 4 September 2014 16:41, akuster808 wrote:
> This is the same reason why I have split a bb into two parts when I submit
> upgrades. I feel it makes reviewing easier the next time a package gets
> upgraded. Trying to find the actual changes between a file being deleted and
> the new one being add
On 09/04/2014 08:03 AM, Robert Yang wrote:
On 09/04/2014 10:12 PM, Burton, Ross wrote:
Hi,
Quick question of style for the community to bikeshed on: in the
general case should recipes be split into foo_1.2.bb and foo.inc, or
should they only split to bb/inc if there are multiple versions an
On 09/04/2014 10:03 AM, Robert Yang wrote:
On 09/04/2014 10:12 PM, Burton, Ross wrote:
Hi,
Quick question of style for the community to bikeshed on: in the
general case should recipes be split into foo_1.2.bb and foo.inc, or
should they only split to bb/inc if there are multiple versions and
On 09/04/2014 10:12 PM, Burton, Ross wrote:
Hi,
Quick question of style for the community to bikeshed on: in the
general case should recipes be split into foo_1.2.bb and foo.inc, or
should they only split to bb/inc if there are multiple versions and
generally there should just be foo_1.2.bb.
Hi,
Quick question of style for the community to bikeshed on: in the
general case should recipes be split into foo_1.2.bb and foo.inc, or
should they only split to bb/inc if there are multiple versions and
generally there should just be foo_1.2.bb.
Specifically I'm looking at the libunwind patch
This is the current stable release of the 37 series. Since it is no longer
a beta, the DEFAULT_PREFERENCE = "-1" bit is removed. Furthermore, this
version adds the angle_use_commit_id flag, which makes the related patch
obsolete.
Signed-off-by: Carlos Rafael Giani
---
.../{chromium_37.0.2062.0.b
With the feature that checking the disk filled up, the return value of
function write_behind was checked and used to detect the disk status.
While for empty file, without data being written, this function will
return -1 thus the disk filled up error was miss-raised. Fix it.
Signed-off-by: Zhang Xi
Signed-off-by: Khem Raj
---
.../recipes-support/ckermit/{ckermit_301.bb => ckermit_302.bb} | 9 +
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
rename meta-oe/recipes-support/ckermit/{ckermit_301.bb => ckermit_302.bb} (90%)
diff --git a/meta-oe/recipes-support/ckermit/ckermit_301.bb
From: Roy Li
After check the copyright in source file, the license is BSD-4-Clause
Signed-off-by: Roy Li
---
meta-networking/recipes-support/tcpdump/tcpslice_1.2a3.bb |2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/meta-networking/recipes-support/tcpdump/tcpslice_1.2a3.b
Signed-off-by: Khem Raj
---
.../libmtp/libmtp-1.1.5/glibc-2.20.patch | 36 ++
.../recipes-connectivity/libmtp/libmtp_1.1.5.bb| 1 +
2 files changed, 37 insertions(+)
create mode 100644
meta-oe/recipes-connectivity/libmtp/libmtp-1.1.5/glibc-2.20.patch
diff --g
Also fix the git SRC_URI location
Signed-off-by: Khem Raj
---
meta-networking/recipes-support/lowpan-tools/lowpan-tools_git.bb | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/meta-networking/recipes-support/lowpan-tools/lowpan-tools_git.bb
b/meta-networking/recipes-sup
luajit as well as acpitests build system has mind of its own and does not
respect CC and friends in makefiles so we have to inject
the CFLAGS via EXTRA_OEMAKE, some of ABI defining params
e.g. float-abi selection is mentioned in TUNE_CCARGS and
not in TOOLCHAIN_OPTIONS. This causes build to go for
Signed-off-by: Khem Raj
---
meta-oe/recipes-support/ckermit/ckermit_301.bb | 57 -
meta-oe/recipes-support/ckermit/ckermit_302.bb | 58 ++
2 files changed, 58 insertions(+), 57 deletions(-)
delete mode 100644 meta-oe/recipes-support/ckermit/ckermit
Signed-off-by: Khem Raj
---
meta-oe/recipes-graphics/numlockx/numlockx_1.2.bb | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/meta-oe/recipes-graphics/numlockx/numlockx_1.2.bb
b/meta-oe/recipes-graphics/numlockx/numlockx_1.2.bb
index ec875f0..47ec504 100644
--- a/meta-oe/reci
Signed-off-by: Khem Raj
---
.../ipsec-tools/ipsec-tools/glibc-2.20.patch | 23 ++
.../ipsec-tools/ipsec-tools_0.8.2.bb | 1 +
2 files changed, 24 insertions(+)
create mode 100644
meta-networking/recipes-support/ipsec-tools/ipsec-tools/glibc-2.20.patch
d
Hi,
I am getting error while Building Qt5 using yocto on Wandboard refering to
the link
http://wiki.wandboard.org/index.php/Building_Qt5_using_yocto_on_Wandboard
At the time of
$ bitbake meta-toolchain-qt5
I am getting error, i have posted that error in wandboard forum -
http://forums.wandboard.
26 matches
Mail list logo
