On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Khem Raj raj.k...@gmail.com wrote:
I think that string is fine as long as its just for yocto but I think
for OE-Core we are going to do a General release
so tagging that with something yocto project will be very confusing
unless we plan to do different
On 04/09/12 19:01, Liu, Song wrote:
Hi all,
This is to restate and clarify the schedule for Yocto Project 1.2 M4
(milestone 4). If you are concerned or have patches you would like to merge,
please see the following dates:
1. RC3 official patch cut-off time: 12:00AM April 8th, 2012, PDT
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Saul Wold s...@linux.intel.com wrote:
Julian,
Thanks for your patience, this is merged into OE-Core
Thanks
Sau!
Saul, I believe you applied the wrong version of the patch.
According to:
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 9:32 PM, McClintock Matthew-B29882
b29...@freescale.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 5:40 PM, Richard Purdie
richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
This is firmly in multilib territory as its not just libgcc but libc as
well and so it goes on.
One of the reasons
with d.getVar.
- Remove i686 from the architecture list because it doesn't seem
to be a valid TARGET_ARCH any more in OE.
- Configure gdb (gdb and gdb-cross) with --enable-64-bit-bfd if
multiarch DISTRO_FEATURE is present
Signed-off-by: Julian Pidancet julian.pidan...@gmail.com
---
meta/recipes
+def get_gcc_multiarch_setting(bb, d):
+ if 'multiarch' in bb.data.getVar('DISTRO_FEATURES',d,1).split() :
+ if bb.data.getVar('TARGET_ARCH', d, 1) in [ 'i586', 'i686' ] :
+ return --enable-targets=all
+ if bb.data.getVar('TARGET_ARCH', d, 1) in [ 'powerpc' ] :
+
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 5:36 PM, Khem Raj raj.k...@gmail.com wrote:
and we also need multiarch support in gdb recipes as well.
Support for Biarch exists in gdb for x86 since May 2009, and it is
enabled by default as far as I can tell.
I managed to dig up the exact commit in the gdb sources:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 1:01 AM, Julian Pidancet
julian.pidan...@gmail.com wrote:
This patch introduces a distro feature which enables gcc to produce
both 32bit and 64bit code, and enables binutils to operate on both
32bit and 64bit binaries. It differs from multilib toolchains in
that it does
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Richard Purdie
richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On Wed, 2011-11-23 at 16:39 +, Julian Pidancet wrote:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 1:01 AM, Julian Pidancet
julian.pidan...@gmail.com wrote:
This patch introduces a distro feature which enables gcc
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 3:09 AM, McClintock Matthew-B29882
b29...@freescale.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 8:18 PM, Julian Pidancet
julian.pidan...@gmail.com wrote:
This patch introduces a distro feature which enables gcc to produce
both 32bit and 64bit code, and enables binutils
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 2:59 AM, McClintock Matthew-B29882
b29...@freescale.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 8:18 PM, Julian Pidancet
julian.pidan...@gmail.com wrote:
+do_configure_prepend () {
+ export fu_cv_sys_stat_statfs2_bsize=yes
I'm asking out of curiosity.. why don't
statfs containing a f_bsize field. That's why
the fu_cv_sys_stat_statfs2_bsize variable has to be defined for
both libcs.
Signed-off-by: Julian Pidancet julian.pidan...@gmail.com
---
meta/recipes-core/coreutils/coreutils_8.14.bb |2 +-
meta/site/common-glibc|3
applications with a 64bit kernel without having to
deal with two separate libc.
Signed-off-by: Julian Pidancet julian.pidan...@gmail.com
---
meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils-cross.inc |3 ++-
meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils.inc|3 ++-
meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc
The coreutils configure script is unable determine how to get free
space from the Operating System when cross-compiling. This patch
gives it some extra help by setting the fu_cv_sys_stat_statfs2_bsize
variable to yes before invoking the configure script.
Signed-off-by: Julian Pidancet
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Nicolas François
nicolas.franc...@centraliens.net wrote:
Hello,
I'm the upstream maintainer of the shadow utilities.
I was informed of the OpenEmbedded's add_root_cmd_options patch and would
like to integrate it upstream.
First of all, thanks a lot for
modified from the previous proposed version to
use useradd long options for more clarity.
Signed-off-by: Julian Pidancet julian.pidan...@gmail.com
---
meta/recipes-connectivity/openssh/openssh_5.8p2.bb | 29 +--
1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
diff --git
the OpenSSH
recipe to useradd.
v2: Fixed a typo in add_root_cmd_options.patch, --root is equivalent to -Q
instead of -R.
v3: Comment modifications and add Signed-off-by line in the modified patch
directly.
Julian Pidancet (2):
Fix the --root option in shadow-native programs
Use useradd
in an answer to one of my
initial post.
Julian Pidancet (2):
Fix the --root option in shadow-native programs.
Use useradd and update-rc.d classes in the OpenSSH recipe
meta/recipes-connectivity/openssh/openssh_5.8p2.bb | 29 +---
.../shadow/files/add_root_cmd_options.patch| 180
modified from the previous proposed version to
use useradd long options for more clarity.
Signed-off-by: Julian Pidancet julian.pidan...@gmail.com
---
meta/recipes-connectivity/openssh/openssh_5.8p2.bb | 29 +--
1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
diff --git
, and this issue was preventing to use useradd and
groupadd long options while using the class.
Signed-off-by: Julian Pidancet julian.pidan...@gmail.com
---
.../shadow/files/add_root_cmd_options.patch| 180 ++--
1 files changed, 89 insertions(+), 91 deletions(-)
diff --git a/meta
modified from the previous proposed version to
use useradd long options for more clarity.
Signed-off-by: Julian Pidancet julian.pidan...@gmail.com
---
meta/recipes-connectivity/openssh/openssh_5.8p2.bb | 29 +--
1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
diff --git
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 12:38 AM, Saul Wold s...@linux.intel.com wrote:
Is there a reason you did not include the group and --disable-password here?
I think it would be good to leave thelong name options in also.
Sau!
The -U option creates a group with the same name. The
--disable-password
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 12:59 AM, Julian Pidancet
julian.pidan...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 12:38 AM, Saul Wold s...@linux.intel.com wrote:
Is there a reason you did not include the group and --disable-password here?
I think it would be good to leave thelong name options
-by: Julian Pidancet julian.pidan...@gmail.com
---
meta/recipes-connectivity/openssh/openssh_5.8p2.bb | 29 +--
1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
diff --git a/meta/recipes-connectivity/openssh/openssh_5.8p2.bb
b/meta/recipes-connectivity/openssh/openssh_5.8p2.bb
index
24 matches
Mail list logo
