On Mon, 2011-06-20 at 00:23 +0200, Erich Titl wrote:
> Hi KP
>
> on 19.06.2011 20:48, KP Kirchdoerfer wrote:
> ...
> >
> > - the current leaf/leaf repository consists now only of the "buildtool",
> > the
> > environment (buildtool, sources and build helpers) for Bering-uClibc4.
> >
> > Andre
Hi KP
on 19.06.2011 20:48, KP Kirchdoerfer wrote:
...
>
> - the current leaf/leaf repository consists now only of the "buildtool", the
>
> environment (buildtool, sources and build helpers) for Bering-uClibc4.
>
> Andrews proposal is to (once again and hopefully finally) move all the
> curr
19.06.2011 22:49, Mike Noyes пишет:
> On Sun, 2011-06-19 at 21:36 +0200, KP Kirchdoerfer wrote:
>> Am Sonntag, 19. Juni 2011, 21:18:23 schrieb Mike Noyes:
>>> On Sun, 2011-06-19 at 22:06 +0300, Andrew wrote:
19.06.2011 21:48, KP Kirchdoerfer пишет:
> Andrews proposal is to (once again and
On Sun, 2011-06-19 at 21:36 +0200, KP Kirchdoerfer wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 19. Juni 2011, 21:18:23 schrieb Mike Noyes:
> > On Sun, 2011-06-19 at 22:06 +0300, Andrew wrote:
> > > 19.06.2011 21:48, KP Kirchdoerfer пишет:
> > > > Andrews proposal is to (once again and hopefully finally) move all the
> >
On Sun, 2011-06-19 at 22:06 +0300, Andrew wrote:
> 19.06.2011 21:48, KP Kirchdoerfer пишет:
> > Andrews proposal is to (once again and hopefully finally) move all the
> > current
> > "buildtool" content to a more speaking name: bering-uclibc4 directory.
> > That way we may add more directories for
On Sun, 2011-06-19 at 20:48 +0200, KP Kirchdoerfer wrote:
> Hi all;
>
> as a summarize of the discussio of the last days:
>
> - the binaries has been moved to a new repository as a compromise between
> popular demand and the needs of the release dude - so they are not any longer
> in the way of
19.06.2011 21:48, KP Kirchdoerfer пишет:
> Andrews proposal is to (once again and hopefully finally) move all the current
> "buildtool" content to a more speaking name: bering-uclibc4 directory.
> That way we may add more directories for development under leaf/leaf, like
> bering-uclibc5, bering-uc
On Sun, 2011-06-19 at 12:48 +0200, KP Kirchdoerfer wrote:
> The FRS is the File Release System of SF; the place where you can download
> the
> images.
Everyone,
Release Files for Download (FRS)
http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/sourceforge/wiki/Release%20files%20for%20download
The FRS supports s
Hi all;
as a summarize of the discussio of the last days:
- the binaries has been moved to a new repository as a compromise between
popular demand and the needs of the release dude - so they are not any longer
in the way of a nice build environment.
They are in leaf/packages repository (namely
19.06.2011 20:10, Erich Titl пишет:
> Hi Andrew
>
> on 19.06.2011 18:56, Andrew wrote:
>> 19.06.2011 19:29, Erich Titl пишет:
>>> on 19.06.2011 17:31, Andrew wrote:
19.06.2011 17:20, Erich Titl пишет:
> Hi Andrew
>
> ...
>
some later, now I haven't enough time (it may require 1-2
19.06.2011 19:02, KP Kirchdoerfer пишет:
> Am Sonntag, 19. Juni 2011, 17:53:02 schrieb Andrew:
>> 19.06.2011 18:01, KP Kirchdoerfer пишет:
>>> Hi Andrew;
>>>
>>> Am Sonntag, 19. Juni 2011, 15:07:53 schrieb Andrew:
This is described on sourceforge:
https://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/sourcef
Hi Erich;
Am Sonntag, 19. Juni 2011, 18:29:26 schrieb Erich Titl:
> on 19.06.2011 17:31, Andrew wrote:
> > 19.06.2011 17:20, Erich Titl пишет:
> >> Hi Andrew
> >>
> >> on 19.06.2011 16:01, Andrew wrote:
> >>> 19.06.2011 16:48, Erich Titl пишет:
> >> ...
>
> ...
>
> > Removing staging/i486-pc-li
Hi Andrew
on 19.06.2011 18:56, Andrew wrote:
> 19.06.2011 19:29, Erich Titl пишет:
>> on 19.06.2011 17:31, Andrew wrote:
>>> 19.06.2011 17:20, Erich Titl пишет:
Hi Andrew
...
>>> some later, now I haven't enough time (it may require 1-2 weeks).
>> Maybe there is place for discussion in
19.06.2011 19:29, Erich Titl пишет:
> on 19.06.2011 17:31, Andrew wrote:
>> 19.06.2011 17:20, Erich Titl пишет:
>>> Hi Andrew
>>>
>>> on 19.06.2011 16:01, Andrew wrote:
19.06.2011 16:48, Erich Titl пишет:
>>> ...
> ...
>
>> Removing staging/i486-pc-linux-uclibc (and possible i486-* in
>> stagi
on 19.06.2011 17:31, Andrew wrote:
> 19.06.2011 17:20, Erich Titl пишет:
>> Hi Andrew
>>
>> on 19.06.2011 16:01, Andrew wrote:
>>> 19.06.2011 16:48, Erich Titl пишет:
>> ...
...
>>
> Removing staging/i486-pc-linux-uclibc (and possible i486-* in
> staging/bin) doesn't help for you?
Maybe it would
Am Sonntag, 19. Juni 2011, 17:53:02 schrieb Andrew:
> 19.06.2011 18:01, KP Kirchdoerfer пишет:
> > Hi Andrew;
> >
> > Am Sonntag, 19. Juni 2011, 15:07:53 schrieb Andrew:
> >> This is described on sourceforge:
> >> https://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/sourceforge/wiki/Git
> >> It requires shell access
19.06.2011 18:01, KP Kirchdoerfer пишет:
> Hi Andrew;
>
> Am Sonntag, 19. Juni 2011, 15:07:53 schrieb Andrew:
>> This is described on sourceforge:
>> https://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/sourceforge/wiki/Git
>> It requires shell access.
> Done; see http://leaf.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb-index.cgi
19.06.2011 17:20, Erich Titl пишет:
> Hi Andrew
>
> on 19.06.2011 16:01, Andrew wrote:
>> 19.06.2011 16:48, Erich Titl пишет:
> ...
>> I usually running rebuild from scratch (it takes some hours) with manual
>> removing of staging, source and so on.
>> Try to remove staging/i486-pc-linux-uclibc dir
Hi Andrew;
Am Sonntag, 19. Juni 2011, 15:07:53 schrieb Andrew:
> This is described on sourceforge:
> https://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/sourceforge/wiki/Git
> It requires shell access.
Done; see http://leaf.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb-index.cgi
If that looks ok for you, you can delete leaf/bi
Hi Andrew
on 19.06.2011 16:01, Andrew wrote:
> 19.06.2011 16:48, Erich Titl пишет:
...
>>
> I usually running rebuild from scratch (it takes some hours) with manual
> removing of staging, source and so on.
> Try to remove staging/i486-pc-linux-uclibc dir, and rebuild buildenv if
> you want to re
19.06.2011 16:48, Erich Titl пишет:
>
> I am sure this reasoning is correct.
> Just make extra sure the actual mess is not repeated.
>
>HOSTCC scripts/basic/fixdep
> /data2/leaf/bering-uclibc/devel/src/leaf/buildtool/staging/lib/gcc/i486-pc-linux-uclibc/4.4.5/../../../../i486-pc-linux-uclibc/b
Hi Andrew
on 19.06.2011 15:07, Andrew wrote:
> 19.06.2011 14:51, KP Kirchdoerfer пишет:
>> Andrew;
>>
>>
...
>> As Erich I'd like to have something that stays for more than a few days.
>>
>> kp
> I just removed ine unneeded directory level in path, If we will move
> binary packages out of the cur
19.06.2011 14:51, KP Kirchdoerfer пишет:
> Andrew;
>
> Am Sonntag, 19. Juni 2011, 13:16:35 schrieb Andrew:
>> 19.06.2011 13:48, KP Kirchdoerfer пишет:
>>> Hi Erich;
>>>
>>> Am Sonntag, 19. Juni 2011, 12:09:36 schrieb Erich Titl:
Hi KP
on 18.06.2011 23:50, KP Kirchdoerfer wrote:
>
Hi Folks
just an update to where I am
I have to rebuild everything from scratch, a task taking the better of
24 hours. Also I possibly lost or have to retinker some of my
modifications of the last few weeks. This is not what I call productive
work.
Please reconsider such moves in the future. It
Hi Erich;
Am Sonntag, 19. Juni 2011, 13:25:41 schrieb Erich Titl:
> Hi KP
>
> on 19.06.2011 12:48, KP Kirchdoerfer wrote:
> > Hi Erich;
>
>
>
> > I agree, in theory it does look bad. But then, what are you're real
> > problems having binaries in git?
>
> This is _inside_ the git tree
>
>
Andrew;
Am Sonntag, 19. Juni 2011, 13:16:35 schrieb Andrew:
> 19.06.2011 13:48, KP Kirchdoerfer пишет:
> > Hi Erich;
> >
> > Am Sonntag, 19. Juni 2011, 12:09:36 schrieb Erich Titl:
> >> Hi KP
> >>
> >> on 18.06.2011 23:50, KP Kirchdoerfer wrote:
> >>> Am Samstag, 18. Juni 2011, 22:51:41 schrieb
Hi KP
on 19.06.2011 12:48, KP Kirchdoerfer wrote:
> Hi Erich;
>
>
> I agree, in theory it does look bad. But then, what are you're real problems
> having binaries in git?
This is _inside_ the git tree
/home/mega/leaf/bering-uclibc/devel/src/leaf/bering-uclibc4/buildtool/package
and thu
19.06.2011 13:48, KP Kirchdoerfer пишет:
> Hi Erich;
>
> Am Sonntag, 19. Juni 2011, 12:09:36 schrieb Erich Titl:
>> Hi KP
>>
>> on 18.06.2011 23:50, KP Kirchdoerfer wrote:
>>> Am Samstag, 18. Juni 2011, 22:51:41 schrieb Erich Titl:
>>> P.S. Should we store compiled packages into git? Maybe ther
Hi Erich;
Am Sonntag, 19. Juni 2011, 12:43:16 schrieb Erich Titl:
> Hi Andrew
>
> on 19.06.2011 12:28, Andrew wrote:
> > 19.06.2011 13:00, Erich Titl пишет:
> >> Hi Andrew
> >>
> >> on 18.06.2011 22:56, Andrew wrote:
> >> ...
> >>
> IMHO we should leave compiled packages out git, at least
Hi Erich;
Am Sonntag, 19. Juni 2011, 12:09:36 schrieb Erich Titl:
> Hi KP
>
> on 18.06.2011 23:50, KP Kirchdoerfer wrote:
> > Am Samstag, 18. Juni 2011, 22:51:41 schrieb Erich Titl:
> > P.S. Should we store compiled packages into git? Maybe there are more
> > useful places for them (file
Hi Andrew
on 19.06.2011 12:28, Andrew wrote:
> 19.06.2011 13:00, Erich Titl пишет:
>> Hi Andrew
>>
>> on 18.06.2011 22:56, Andrew wrote:
>> ...
>>
IMHO we should leave compiled packages out git, at least out of the main
tree, they are a nuisance there, even though it may brake the curren
19.06.2011 13:00, Erich Titl пишет:
> Hi Andrew
>
> on 18.06.2011 22:56, Andrew wrote:
> ...
>
>>> IMHO we should leave compiled packages out git, at least out of the main
>>> tree, they are a nuisance there, even though it may brake the current
>>> release process.
>>>
>>> OK GIT gurus, what do I
Hi KP
on 18.06.2011 23:50, KP Kirchdoerfer wrote:
> Am Samstag, 18. Juni 2011, 22:51:41 schrieb Erich Titl:
> P.S. Should we store compiled packages into git? Maybe there are more
> useful places for them (file archive/FTP/etc)? Git is more oriented for
> source distribution/versioning
Hi Andrew
on 18.06.2011 22:56, Andrew wrote:
...
>> IMHO we should leave compiled packages out git, at least out of the main
>> tree, they are a nuisance there, even though it may brake the current
>> release process.
>>
>> OK GIT gurus, what do I have to do to get back in sync? And please don't
34 matches
Mail list logo
