[yocto] current poky ref manual doesn't document some top level yocto entries
currently, the yocto/poky ref manual, Appendix A.1, Top level core components, doesn't mention the entries meta-yocto or meta-hob. it also lists the meta-rt layer, which has been moved to oe-core. i also don't think it should list build, as that's a generated artifact and is documented adequately elsewhere. in any event, the ref manual should be updated to reflect the current yocto structure. rday -- Robert P. J. Day Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA http://crashcourse.ca Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday LinkedIn: http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
[yocto] contradictory explanations of IMAGE_INSTALL in yocto manuals
(i posted something regarding this on the oe-core list, but i wanted to post here as well with specific examples from the yocto manuals.) from the yocto dev manual, section 4.3.1: The other method for creating a custom image is to modify an existing image. For example, if a developer wants to add strace into the core-image-sato image, they can use the following recipe: require core-image-sato.bb IMAGE_INSTALL += strace however, here's the discussion of IMAGE_INSTALL in the poky ref manual in the variables glossary: Using IMAGE_INSTALL with the += operator from the /conf/local.conf file or from within an image recipe is not recommended as it can cause ordering issues. ... and that explanation goes on to recommend using IMAGE_INSTALL_append instead. that inconsistency should be cleared up. rday -- Robert P. J. Day Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA http://crashcourse.ca Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday LinkedIn: http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Re: [yocto] Adding test files to an image
On 03/08/2012 08:04 PM, Eric Bénard wrote:
Le Thu, 08 Mar 2012 17:38:40 -0500,
jfabernathyjfaberna...@gmail.com a écrit :
So what I can get to work is the following recipe, but what I want is
not o have to specify the file extension:
you may be able to build your archive in a directory like :
myvideos-1.0/files.mp4, so that your files will be available in ${S} =
${WORKDIR}/myvideos-1.0/
Eric
Duh! That was too easy. Not sure why it was not obvious to me. Thanks,
So I put all my videos into a directory called myvideos-1.0 and tar
gz'ed the whole directory. now the following works:
DESCRIPTION = my video test files
SECTION = examples
LICENSE = CLOSED
MY_DESTINATION = /home/root/myvideos
SRC_URI = file://myvideos-1.0/myvideos-1.0.tar.gz
do_install_append() {
install -d ${D}${MY_DESTINATION}
install -m 0644 ${S}/* ${D}${MY_DESTINATION}
}
PR = r0
FILES_${PN} += ${MY_DESTINATION}/*
--
You just have to put your newly created tarball of the myvideos-1.0
directory in the SRC_URI.
Thanks again,
JIm A
___
yocto mailing list
yocto@yoctoproject.org
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Re: [yocto] meta-toolchain-qte problems
Hi, I wish to create bsp for our project in which we are using arm1136 processor. I have created a layer (meta_EB) same as meta for our project and have made required changes in conf file for meta_EB to get compiled. I am trying to bitbake -v meta-toolchain-qte, but it gives me an error when it reaches linux-libc-headers. Following is the error I am getting: NOTE: package update-rc.d-0.7-r3: task do_compile: Started NOTE: package update-rc.d-0.7-r3: task do_compile: Succeeded NOTE: Running task 2099 of 3217 (ID: 1368, /home/navani/Yocto_Patches/poky-bernard-5.0/meta_EB/ recipes-core/update-rc.d/update-rc.d_0.7.bb,do_install) NOTE: package update-rc.d-0.7-r3: task do_install: Started NOTE: package update-rc.d-0.7-r3: task do_install: Succeeded NOTE: Running noexec task 2100 of 3217 (ID: 939, virtual:native:/home/navani/Yocto_Patches/poky-bernard-5.0/ meta_EB/recipes-devtools/bison/bison_2.4.3.bb, do_package_write) NOTE: Running noexec task 2101 of 3217 (ID: 925, virtual:native:/home/navani/Yocto_Patches/poky-bernard-5.0/ meta_EB/recipes-devtools/flex/flex_2.5.35.bb,do_package_write) NOTE: Running noexec task 2102 of 3217 (ID: 461, virtual:native:/home/Yocto_Patches/poky-bernard-5.0/meta_EB/ recipes-support/libmpc/libmpc_0.8.2.bb, do_package_write) NOTE: Running noexec task 2103 of 3217 (ID: 447, virtual:native:/home/Yocto_Patches/poky-bernard-5.0/meta_EB/ recipes-support/gmp/gmp_5.0.1.bb, do_package_write) NOTE: Running noexec task 2104 of 3217 (ID: 433, virtual:native:/home/Yocto_Patches/poky-bernard-5.0/meta_EB/ recipes-support/mpfr/mpfr_3.0.0.bb, do_package_write) NOTE: Running task 2105 of 3217 (ID: 171, /home/Yocto_Patches/poky-bernard-5.0/meta_EB/recipes-kernel/ linux-libc-headers/linux-libc-headers_2.6.37.2.bb, do_package_write_rpm) NOTE: package linux-libc-headers-2.6.37.2-r0: task do_package_w rite_rpm: Started NOTE: Creating RPM package for linux-libc-headers-dbg NOTE: Not creating empty RPM package for linux-libc-headers NOTE: Not creating empty RPM package for linux-libc-headers-doc ERROR: '/home//Yocto_Patches/poky-bernard-5.0/meta_EB/recipes-kernel/ linux-libc-headers/linux-libc-headers_2.6.37.2.bb' failed NOTE: Creating RPM package for linux-libc-headers-dev NOTE: Not creating empty RPM package for linux-libc- headers-locale ERROR: Lockfile destination directory '/home/Yocto_Patches/poky-bernard-5.0/build/tmp/deploy /rpm' does not exist ERROR: Function 'do_package_rpm' failed ERROR: Logfile of failure stored in: /home/Yocto_Patches/poky-bernard-5.0/build/tmp/work/ armv6-poky-linux-gnueabi/linux-libc-headers-2.6.37.2-r0/temp/log.do_package_write _rpm.25095 Log data follows: |NOTE: Creating RPM package for linux-libc-headers-dbg |NOTE: Not creating empty RPM package for linux-libc-headers |NOTE: Not creating empty RPM package for linux-libc-headers-doc |NOTE: Creating RPM package for linux-libc-headers-dev |NOTE: Not creating empty RPM package for linux-libc-headers-locale |ERROR: Lockfile destination directory '/home/Yocto_Patches/poky-bernard-5.0/build/tmp/deploy/rpm' does not exist | ERROR: Function 'do_package_rpm' failed NOTE: package linux-libc-headers-2.6.37.2-r0: task do_package_ write_rpm: Failed ERROR: Task 171 (/home/Yocto_Patches/poky-bernard-5.0/meta_EB/ recipes-kernel/linux-libc-headers/linux-libc-headers_ 2.6.37.2.bb,do_package_write_rpm So what changes should I make and Could anyone please assist me with this problem? Regards, praveen vk ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Re: [yocto] yocto and LTSI
On 03/09/2012 08:43 AM, Bruce Ashfield wrote: On 12-03-09 07:20 AM, David Nyström wrote: Hi All, Whats yoctos take on LTSI ? http://git.linuxfoundation.org/?p=ltsi-kernel.git;a=summary http://lwn.net/Articles/484337/ I've noticed that LTT-ng and other kernel patches are independently ported and maintained by the yocto project. Are there any plans for yocto to have ltsi-kernel patches as upstream ? We'll be syncing up with the ltsi kernel parts over the summer. But yes, LTSI will be one of the sources used for yocto kernel trees. Cheers, Bruce I just finished reviewing the slides for LTSI given at ELC: (https://events.linuxfoundation.org/images/stories/pdf/lf_elc12_shibata.pdf). Why does the Linux Foundation need to get behind yet another effort to maintain a kernel repository for embedded? It seems that many of the objectives are the same for the two projects regarding the kernel. Why not just branch a yearly Yocto kernel as long-term stable and add the support methodology outlined in the LTSI slides to this branch? Perhaps this could also be done with the Poky repo? How is a developer supposed to view Yocto and LTSI? The former is cutting edge, developer friendly with all the bells whistles, and experimental but use the latter for production??? Or maybe use the tools and rootfs from Yocto but the kernel from LTSI? It seems Greg K-H of LTSI should join forces with Yocto and keep things simple unified for us embedded developers (or Yocto should dump maintaining its own kernel repos and just draw from LTSI). Bob ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Re: [yocto] yocto and LTSI
On 12-03-09 09:36 AM, Bob Cochran wrote: On 03/09/2012 08:43 AM, Bruce Ashfield wrote: On 12-03-09 07:20 AM, David Nyström wrote: Hi All, Whats yoctos take on LTSI ? http://git.linuxfoundation.org/?p=ltsi-kernel.git;a=summary http://lwn.net/Articles/484337/ I've noticed that LTT-ng and other kernel patches are independently ported and maintained by the yocto project. Are there any plans for yocto to have ltsi-kernel patches as upstream ? We'll be syncing up with the ltsi kernel parts over the summer. But yes, LTSI will be one of the sources used for yocto kernel trees. Cheers, Bruce I just finished reviewing the slides for LTSI given at ELC: (https://events.linuxfoundation.org/images/stories/pdf/lf_elc12_shibata.pdf). Why does the Linux Foundation need to get behind yet another effort to maintain a kernel repository for embedded? It seems that many of the objectives are the same for the two projects regarding the kernel. Why not just branch a yearly Yocto kernel as long-term stable and add the support methodology outlined in the LTSI slides to this branch? Perhaps this could also be done with the Poky repo? LTSI is still relatively new, a bit of patience is required for us to effectively collaborate between the two areas. But yocto will always have a newer kernel than LTSI as we work throughout any given period. Quite simply put, there is no way to have one kernel version that meets everyone's needs. That's always been the case, and will likely continue to be the case for the forseeable future. How is a developer supposed to view Yocto and LTSI? The former is cutting edge, developer friendly with all the bells whistles, and experimental but use the latter for production??? Or maybe use the tools and rootfs from Yocto but the kernel from LTSI? These sorts of things are still being worked out, when we actually have a LSTI based yocto option, some sort of messaging will be created. It seems Greg K-H of LTSI should join forces with Yocto and keep things simple unified for us embedded developers (or Yocto should dump maintaining its own kernel repos and just draw from LTSI). I already have initial conact with Greg on sync'ing up my efforts with LSTI. Perhaps someday there will be a more complete overlap in the two, but today there isn't a complete overlap, so there will be additions to LTSI that some boards/features/etc that yocto requires. Those additions may degrade to zero over time. In fact, if everything would just go mainline .. that would be even better. Cheers, Bruce Bob ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
[yocto] issue building iputils with uclibc
Hello all I'm having problems compiling iputils with uclibc - | ping6.o: In function `niquery_option_subject_name_handler': | /tmp/work/i586-poky-linux-uclibc/iputils-s20101006-r2/iputils-s20101006/ping6.c:428: undefined reference to `dn_comp' | collect2: ld returned 1 exit status | make: *** [ping6] Error 1 | make: *** Waiting for unfinished jobs | make[1]: Leaving directory `/tmp/work/i586-poky-linux-uclibc/iputils-s20101006-r2/iputils-s20101006/doc' | ERROR: oe_runmake failed NOTE: package iputils-s20101006-r2: task do_compile: Failed ERROR: Task 4 (/poky/meta/recipes-extended/iputils/iputils_s20101006.bb, do_compile) failed with exit code '1' It works fine with eglibc. Any help would be greatly appreciated! Regards John ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Re: [yocto] issue building iputils with uclibc
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 7:18 AM, John Toomey john.too...@linux.intel.com wrote: undefined reference to `dn_comp' add LDFLAGS_libc-uclibc_append = -lresolv to recipe. ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Re: [yocto] contradictory explanations of IMAGE_INSTALL in yocto manuals
I tried the versions _append and += as well as _prepend and =+ with the IMAGE_INSTALL and other variables. So far I have not run into any issues where one would behave differently from the other. The only thing you have to remember with the _append and _prepend versions is that you have to include a space at the beginning for _append and at the end for _prepend. Although I have found that not always to be consistent either. However, an additional space does not hurt. Rudi ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Re: [yocto] contradictory explanations of IMAGE_INSTALL in yocto manuals
I don't think that there is a difference. At least not from my experience. Every time I have the choice I tried both variants and then examined the resulting variable e.g. bitbake recipe -e | grep IMAGE_INSTALL It looked the same. My conclusion is to use += and =+ for variables and _append and _prepend for tasks. But I could possibly be wrong since there are definitely many more cases than I have tried. Hence, it would probably be prudent to dig into Bitbake's code to see how it handles _append and _prepend. I have not had time to do that. Rudi On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Robert P. J. Day rpj...@crashcourse.cawrote: On Fri, 9 Mar 2012, Rudolf Streif wrote: I tried the versions _append and += as well as _prepend and =+ with the IMAGE_INSTALL and other variables. So far I have not run into any issues where one would behave differently from the other. The only thing you have to remember with the _append and _prepend versions is that you have to include a space at the beginning for _append and at the end for _prepend. Although I have found that not always to be consistent either. However, an additional space does not hurt. well, as i mentioned, the manual suggests quite strongly that there is a fundamental difference. i'd just like to understand clearly what that is. rday -- Robert P. J. Day Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA http://crashcourse.ca Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday LinkedIn: http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
[yocto] propriety of asking OE-core questions on yocto list?
i've decided to stop nibbling around the edges and, once and for all, figure out OpenEmbedded from beginning to end. to that end, i've checked out oe-core and want to focus on just the fundamentals. the current openembedded manual here: http://docs.openembedded.org/usermanual/usermanual.html covers OE classic so it's not really appropriate to use as a guide. the more recent OE material (incorporating the oe-core/meta-openbmbedded distinction) appears to be incorporated in the yocto[poky] reference manual: http://www.yoctoproject.org/docs/latest/poky-ref-manual/poky-ref-manual.html so it would make more sense to use the yocto reference manual as my guide, even though i would be asking fundamental questions about oe-core. which is the right forum for that? certainly the topic would be OE, but any suggestions for improvements to the docs would be a yocto issue. rday -- Robert P. J. Day Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA http://crashcourse.ca Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday LinkedIn: http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Re: [yocto] [KERNEL] [PATCH 0/1] Additional pvr patches
On 12-03-09 02:03 PM, kishore.k.bo...@intel.com wrote: From: Kishore Bodkekishore.k.bo...@intel.com Hi, These addtional patches enable Cedarview hdmi and acpi. Please pull thme to the yocto/pvr branch in linux-yocto-3.0 tree. Looks fine. will Merge it shortly and send a confirmation. Bruce Thanks Kishore. The following changes since commit 3604d007243d3db5fea8704f78a3608862e592f9: yocto/pvr: integrate pvr support (2012-03-02 16:34:43 -0500) are available in the git repository at: git://git.pokylinux.org/linux-yocto-2.6.37-contrib bodke/new-pvr-patch http://git.pokylinux.org/cgit.cgi/linux-yocto-2.6.37-contrib/log/?h=bodke/new-pvr-patch Kishore Bodke (1): Add new pvr patches. Additional pvr patches related to hdmi and acpi. drivers/acpi/video.c |2 -- sound/pci/hda/patch_hdmi.c |2 ++ 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
[yocto] Yocto Project 1.2 M3 1.1.1 release readiness
BEGIN:VCALENDAR METHOD:REQUEST PRODID:Microsoft Exchange Server 2010 VERSION:2.0 BEGIN:VTIMEZONE TZID:Pacific Standard Time BEGIN:STANDARD DTSTART:16010101T02 TZOFFSETFROM:-0700 TZOFFSETTO:-0800 RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;INTERVAL=1;BYDAY=1SU;BYMONTH=11 END:STANDARD BEGIN:DAYLIGHT DTSTART:16010101T02 TZOFFSETFROM:-0800 TZOFFSETTO:-0700 RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;INTERVAL=1;BYDAY=2SU;BYMONTH=3 END:DAYLIGHT END:VTIMEZONE BEGIN:VEVENT ORGANIZER;CN=Liu, Song:MAILTO:song@intel.com ATTENDEE;ROLE=REQ-PARTICIPANT;PARTSTAT=NEEDS-ACTION;RSVP=TRUE;CN=yocto@yoct oproject.org:MAILTO:yocto@yoctoproject.org DESCRIPTION;LANGUAGE=en-US:When: Monday\, March 12\, 2012 8:00 AM-9:00 AM ( UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US Canada).\nWhere: Bridge Info Enclosed\n\nNot e: The GMT offset above does not reflect daylight saving time adjustments. \n\n*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*\n\nMonday\, March 12\, 2012\, 08:00 AM US Pacific Time\n916-356-2663\, 8-356-2663\, Bridge: 4\, Passcode: 1137217\nSpeed dia ler: inteldialer://4\,1137217 | Learn morehttp://it.intel.com/products/ha ndhelds/speeddial.htm\n\n\n\n SUMMARY;LANGUAGE=en-US:Yocto Project 1.2 M3 1.1.1 release readiness DTSTART;TZID=Pacific Standard Time:20120312T08 DTEND;TZID=Pacific Standard Time:20120312T09 UID:04008200E00074C5B7101A82E008801DDB57FEFDCC01000 01000E7F12BECFB81CB4C9EBA3987AA976E28 CLASS:PUBLIC PRIORITY:5 DTSTAMP:20120309T224417Z TRANSP:OPAQUE STATUS:CONFIRMED SEQUENCE:0 LOCATION;LANGUAGE=en-US:Bridge Info Enclosed X-MICROSOFT-CDO-APPT-SEQUENCE:0 X-MICROSOFT-CDO-OWNERAPPTID:646526940 X-MICROSOFT-CDO-BUSYSTATUS:TENTATIVE X-MICROSOFT-CDO-INTENDEDSTATUS:BUSY X-MICROSOFT-CDO-ALLDAYEVENT:FALSE X-MICROSOFT-CDO-IMPORTANCE:1 X-MICROSOFT-CDO-INSTTYPE:0 X-MICROSOFT-DISALLOW-COUNTER:FALSE BEGIN:VALARM ACTION:DISPLAY DESCRIPTION:REMINDER TRIGGER;RELATED=START:-PT15M END:VALARM END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
[yocto] Request for Yocto Project 1.2 release Beta Program Users Yocto T-Shirt
Hi all, It's that time again. We are starting the Beta program for Yocto Project 1.2 release. This release focuses on usability of the Yocto Project. HOB2 is the second version of our Human Oriented Builder (GUI based), which will help developers build customized Linux image in a much more intuitive and smoother way. Build appliance will help users on Windows to get started with Yocto Project quickly. There are also many other features such as multi-lib improvement, error handling improvement, BSP tools, etc. Please volunteer or send me the names who you think should be a good candidate for our Beta release users. Anyone who is interested in Yocto Project and/or has some technical background in embedded Linux area should be just fine. And this time, we will send our Beta users some Yocto T-Shirts and I'm sure you will look more attractive in them :) If you do want to volunteer or have someone in mind, please send me the names sometime next week. Thank you for your support and we really appreciate it! Thanks, Song ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
