Ok, I only saw the replacement approach in mamona and didn't know the
the long term goal to align with maemo, Rodrigo told. This makes sense
to me.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
> Mamona will be more useful and successful if it serves properly maemo
> developers like Sebastian. I'm sure the INdT gu
Mamona will be more useful and successful if it serves properly maemo
developers like Sebastian. I'm sure the INdT guys have this in mind. :)
In terms of roadmapping for us
maemo + OE = mamona
INdT is doing pretty well with the development and I don't see a need
for us now to take part directl
On 9/24/07, Sebastian Mancke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi.
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
> > Hi Sebastian,
> >
> >> It would be
> >> great to have a working DISTRO configuration in OE which
> >> enables one to produce binary compatible packages.
> >
> > Is http://dev.openbossa.org/trac/mamona g
Hi.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
> Hi Sebastian,
>
>> It would be
>> great to have a working DISTRO configuration in OE which
>> enables one to produce binary compatible packages.
>
> Is http://dev.openbossa.org/trac/mamona going in the direction you wish?
No. When I understand mamona right, it
Hi Sebastian,
>It would be
>great to have a working DISTRO configuration in OE which
>enables one to produce binary compatible packages.
Is http://dev.openbossa.org/trac/mamona going in the direction you wish?
Quim
___
maemo-developers mailing list
m
Hi Simon,
We are using the OpenEmbedded as build system of Mamona. After we have
all packages built by OE we add then to a .deb repository and after a
debootstrap installation in your pc you will be able to use the Mamona
environment with chroot + qemu. This is not an OE stuff but a Mamona
approac
> > I think that the group developing Mamona are effectively
using a 'native'
> > OpenEmbedded setup within Scratchbox. I don't know how far
> along they are or
> > whether this is a better approach than cross-compiling with
> OpenEmbedded as I'm
> > not really up to speed with OE any more.
>
On 9/24/07, Simon Pickering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > >> I would love to see support for OpenEmbedded.
> > >
> > > What would need to be changed on the maemo side to support
> > > OpenEmbedded? Aren't you rather asking for maemo support in
> > > OpenEmbedded?
> > You are right, maybe this i
> >> I would love to see support for OpenEmbedded.
> >
> > What would need to be changed on the maemo side to support
> > OpenEmbedded? Aren't you rather asking for maemo support in
> > OpenEmbedded?
> You are right, maybe this is the proper viewpoint.
>
> For maemo 3.2, I could not get a matc
Marius Vollmer schrieb:
> "ext Sebastian Mancke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I would love to see support for OpenEmbedded.
>
> What would need to be changed on the maemo side to support
> OpenEmbedded? Aren't you rather asking for maemo support in
> OpenEmbedded?
You are right, maybe this
"ext Sebastian Mancke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I would love to see support for OpenEmbedded.
What would need to be changed on the maemo side to support
OpenEmbedded? Aren't you rather asking for maemo support in
OpenEmbedded?
___
maemo-developers
Hi Quim,
I would love to see support for OpenEmbedded. It would be great to have
a working DISTRO configuration in OE which enables one to produce binary
compatible packages.
For people like us, who are maintaining software for several target
platforms, OE is the best choice to do this. Furthermor
12 matches
Mail list logo
