-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I wanted to mention that I switched from 64-bit Ubuntu to 32-bit Ubuntu,
and I got the same fatal build problem with bluez-gnome, but not the
errors leading up to that.
I tried Rolf's build process, and it looks like he isn't supporting
Angstrom anymo
Junqian Gordon Xu wrote:
On 09/22/2008 12:14 PM, Philip Balister wrote:
Koen Kooi wrote:
Bob Igo wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Koen Kooi wrote:
Ah, that error is one of that random libtool ones we fixed in .dev:
'bitbake -c clean libtool-cross ; bitbake -c clean fontco
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Koen Kooi wrote:
> It's a general, but unpredictable problem. We don't know what triggers
> it, just that it happens from time to time.
I highly recommend putting the workaround in the build instructions,
then. If the goal is that someone can follow
On 09/22/2008 01:00 PM, Koen Kooi wrote:
Junqian Gordon Xu wrote:
On 09/22/2008 12:14 PM, Philip Balister wrote:
Koen Kooi wrote:
The fix would be hundreds of commits large, since it's tied it to the
toolchain overhaul, sysroot changes and libtool 2.x changes. So
that's sadly not feasible to d
Bob Igo wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Koen Kooi wrote:
The fix would be hundreds of commits large, since it's tied it to the
toolchain overhaul, sysroot changes and libtool 2.x changes. So that's
sadly not feasible to do.
Is it going to happen to everyone, or just peopl
Junqian Gordon Xu wrote:
On 09/22/2008 12:14 PM, Philip Balister wrote:
Koen Kooi wrote:
Bob Igo wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Koen Kooi wrote:
Ah, that error is one of that random libtool ones we fixed in .dev:
'bitbake -c clean libtool-cross ; bitbake -c clean fontco
On 09/22/2008 12:14 PM, Philip Balister wrote:
Koen Kooi wrote:
Bob Igo wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Koen Kooi wrote:
Ah, that error is one of that random libtool ones we fixed in .dev:
'bitbake -c clean libtool-cross ; bitbake -c clean fontconfig'
Thanks for helping
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Koen Kooi wrote:
>> The fix would be hundreds of commits large, since it's tied it to the
>> toolchain overhaul, sysroot changes and libtool 2.x changes. So that's
>> sadly not feasible to do.
Is it going to happen to everyone, or just people who try
Koen Kooi wrote:
Bob Igo wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Koen Kooi wrote:
Ah, that error is one of that random libtool ones we fixed in .dev:
'bitbake -c clean libtool-cross ; bitbake -c clean fontconfig'
Thanks for helping me work around that. How does this fix get
pro
Bob Igo wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Koen Kooi wrote:
Ah, that error is one of that random libtool ones we fixed in .dev:
'bitbake -c clean libtool-cross ; bitbake -c clean fontconfig'
Thanks for helping me work around that. How does this fix get
propagated to the sta
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Koen Kooi wrote:
>> Ah, that error is one of that random libtool ones we fixed in .dev:
>> 'bitbake -c clean libtool-cross ; bitbake -c clean fontconfig'
Thanks for helping me work around that. How does this fix get
propagated to the stable branch so
Bob Igo wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Koen Kooi wrote:
What happens if you follow the current instructions in
http://www.angstrom-distribution.org/building-angstrom ? Is it still
broken?
Finally finished building all I could. Building base-image and
console-image for t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Koen Kooi wrote:
> What happens if you follow the current instructions in
> http://www.angstrom-distribution.org/building-angstrom ? Is it still
> broken?
Finally finished building all I could. Building base-image and
console-image for the hx4700 wor
Bernhard Guillon schrieb:
Now, please explain to me why building-angstrom is now duplicated in
a wikipage and why the wiki page shouldn't get deleted.
Well I got it wrong. I thought you tested the apt-get stuff and found
it working fine.
I started the wiki page one day before because you
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dmitry Artamonow wrote:
> In fact it would be much nicer not to use "/OE" at all.
> We can use something like "${HOME}/OE", so we won't need any
> `su` or `chown` anymore.
>
> Personally I have my OE set up exactly this way.
I think that'd be fine, t
On 15:50 Sun 21 Sep , Bob Igo wrote:
> More tidbits: Ultimately, people should run bitbake as regular users,
> but the guide starts out with "mkdir /OE" which will only work via sudo
> or otherwise as root. At the risk of someone becoming root and staying
> root for the whole setup, why not em
Bob Igo wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Some other notes:
The "source-me.txt" contents aren't indented properly. Syntactically,
it's fine, but it might lead people to believe that
"PATH=/OE/bitbake-1.8.10/bin:${ORG_PATH}" and below should actually be
nested.
It's also not
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
More tidbits: Ultimately, people should run bitbake as regular users,
but the guide starts out with "mkdir /OE" which will only work via sudo
or otherwise as root. At the risk of someone becoming root and staying
root for the whole setup, why not emph
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Some other notes:
The "source-me.txt" contents aren't indented properly. Syntactically,
it's fine, but it might lead people to believe that
"PATH=/OE/bitbake-1.8.10/bin:${ORG_PATH}" and below should actually be
nested.
It's also not possible to copy
Thomas Kunze schrieb:
Right. But imo it should be enough to have sth. like "set up oe as in
[oe-getting-started] and set distro to angstrom". If sth. is wrong
with the oe getting started page this should be fixed. No need to
duplicate stuff here. The apt stuff is already in oe wiki and as long
Koen Kooi schrieb:
That won't work. Unsupported stuff has no place in documentation. If
it doesn't work, it should be tracked down why it doesn't work and get
fixed.
I just set up another buildmachine following the instructions to the
letter, and it worked.
Ok, I started a temporary testing p
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Koen Kooi wrote:
> Indeed there is. Fixed! Thanks for spotting it. It works on my machine
> because that those have both a 1.8.8 and 1.8.10 dir
No problem :) These are exactly the types of things I'd like to discover.
- --
Bob Igo
StormLogic
---
Bob Igo wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Koen Kooi wrote:
Bob Igo wrote:
Koen Kooi wrote:
I appreciate you telling me that, but shouldn't the official build
instructions be corrected to show a consistent version?
They already have been :)
Nearly :) I see that you upd
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Koen Kooi wrote:
> Bob Igo wrote:
> Koen Kooi wrote:
> I appreciate you telling me that, but shouldn't the official build
> instructions be corrected to show a consistent version?
>
>> They already have been :)
Nearly :) I see that you updated the
Bob Igo wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Koen Kooi wrote:
Either should be fine.
I appreciate you telling me that, but shouldn't the official build
instructions be corrected to show a consistent version?
They already have been :)
- --
Bob Igo
StormLogic
-BEGIN PGP
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Koen Kooi wrote:
>> Either should be fine.
I appreciate you telling me that, but shouldn't the official build
instructions be corrected to show a consistent version?
- --
Bob Igo
StormLogic
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Lin
Bob Igo wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Koen Kooi wrote:
What happens if you follow the current instructions in
http://www.angstrom-distribution.org/building-angstrom ?
I'm still installing Ubuntu on my spare machine, but in the meantime I
already noticed a problem with t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Koen Kooi wrote:
> What happens if you follow the current instructions in
> http://www.angstrom-distribution.org/building-angstrom ?
I'm still installing Ubuntu on my spare machine, but in the meantime I
already noticed a problem with the instructions
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Koen Kooi wrote:
> To avoid confusion: Angstrom will never support a deb/rpm/whatever based
> setup method. There's an overhaul scheduled for the angstrom
> distrofiles, which will alter the way how various options are selected.
> So people using makef
Bob Igo wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Koen Kooi wrote:
I guess I was unclear when I said:
Unsupported stuff has no place in documentation.
That means:
Unsupported stuff does NOT get mentioned in the documentation.
A solution to this would be to support the DEB-based
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Koen Kooi wrote:
> I guess I was unclear when I said:
>
> Unsupported stuff has no place in documentation.
>
> That means:
>
> Unsupported stuff does NOT get mentioned in the documentation.
A solution to this would be to support the DEB-based build
Koen Kooi schrieb:
Bernhard Guillon wrote:
Koen Kooi schrieb:
Bernhard Guillon wrote:
Bob Igo schrieb:
In my experience, the unofficial apt-gettable OE build instructions
were
99% simpler, and 100% painless, when compared with the official build
instructions: http://blog.leggewie.org/?p=39 It
Bernhard Guillon wrote:
Koen Kooi schrieb:
Bernhard Guillon wrote:
Bob Igo schrieb:
In my experience, the unofficial apt-gettable OE build instructions
were
99% simpler, and 100% painless, when compared with the official build
instructions: http://blog.leggewie.org/?p=39 It's the only way I've
Koen Kooi schrieb:
Bernhard Guillon wrote:
Bob Igo schrieb:
In my experience, the unofficial apt-gettable OE build instructions
were
99% simpler, and 100% painless, when compared with the official build
instructions: http://blog.leggewie.org/?p=39 It's the only way I've
been able to build Angs
Bernhard Guillon wrote:
Bob Igo schrieb:
In my experience, the unofficial apt-gettable OE build instructions were
99% simpler, and 100% painless, when compared with the official build
instructions: http://blog.leggewie.org/?p=39 It's the only way I've
been able to build Angstrom.
This is a nice
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Philip Balister wrote:
> What about the non-apt universe? I have problem pointing people to
> Rolf's apt-get stuff (except that it isn't immediately obvious from the
> blog post what to do for Angstrom) for people that can use it.
For the non-apt univ
Bob Igo wrote:
Frankly, I think that Rolf's apt-gettable build process should be the
official way, and the current generic build process should be a fallback
in case the official process fails or won't run on a user's distro of
choice. I mean, look at it - it's 5 shell commands, and then you're
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bernhard Guillon wrote:
> This is a nice way to build Angstrom and I think it is worth to add it
> to a build guide - but clearly marked as unsupported.
When I went onto the Angstrom IRC channel to get help using the
supported build method, I was told
Bob Igo schrieb:
In my experience, the unofficial apt-gettable OE build instructions were
99% simpler, and 100% painless, when compared with the official build
instructions: http://blog.leggewie.org/?p=39 It's the only way I've
been able to build Angstrom.
This is a nice way to build Angstrom
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Koen Kooi wrote:
> My fear is mostly for things like the building-angstrom page. The page
> is there, because I couldn't stop 'crap' from appearing in the OE
> GettingStarted wiki.
In my experience, the unofficial apt-gettable OE build instructions we
Koen Kooi schrieb:
My fear is mostly for things like the building-angstrom page. The page
is there, because I couldn't stop 'crap' from appearing in the OE
GettingStarted wiki. And recently people started using the wiki as a
mailinglist replacement, which also scares the crap out of me.
You
Paul Eggleton wrote:
On Saturday 20 September 2008, Koen Kooi wrote:
The split is quite easy: documentation that has been checked to be true
is on the website, the wiki is only there for documentation to mature
and get moved to the website.
Documentation in the wiki is *temporary*.
I'm not sur
On Saturday 20 September 2008, Koen Kooi wrote:
> The split is quite easy: documentation that has been checked to be true
> is on the website, the wiki is only there for documentation to mature
> and get moved to the website.
> Documentation in the wiki is *temporary*.
I'm not sure I agree with th
Bernhard Guillon wrote:
Hi all,
several documentation pages are spread over wiki and webpages. Building
Angstrom is only one example for that. Is this for a reason or just
historical and allowed to be changed? You can have documents which are
only changeable for special users in moin moin if this
Hi all,
several documentation pages are spread over wiki and webpages. Building
Angstrom is only one example for that. Is this for a reason or just
historical and allowed to be changed? You can have documents which are
only changeable for special users in moin moin if this is the reason for
th
45 matches
Mail list logo
