On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 22:36 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote:
> Op 20 sep 2011, om 22:30 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven:
>
> > On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 14:10 -0500, Mark Hatle wrote:
> >> On 9/20/11 2:04 PM, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov wrote:
> >>> Hello, colleagues,
> >>>
> >>> While debugging some
Op 20 sep 2011, om 22:30 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven:
On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 14:10 -0500, Mark Hatle wrote:
On 9/20/11 2:04 PM, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov wrote:
Hello, colleagues,
While debugging some stuff in oe-core & company I've noticed that
lot's of packages
either don't u
On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 14:10 -0500, Mark Hatle wrote:
> On 9/20/11 2:04 PM, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov wrote:
> > Hello, colleagues,
> >
> > While debugging some stuff in oe-core & company I've noticed that
> > lot's of packages
> > either don't use INC_PR, or misuse it (e.g. .inc has INC_PR, but then
On 9/20/11 2:04 PM, Dmitry Eremin-Solenikov wrote:
> Hello, colleagues,
>
> While debugging some stuff in oe-core & company I've noticed that
> lot's of packages
> either don't use INC_PR, or misuse it (e.g. .inc has INC_PR, but then
> .bb just defines PR = "rX").
I've noticed similar things. I'
Hello, colleagues,
While debugging some stuff in oe-core & company I've noticed that
lot's of packages
either don't use INC_PR, or misuse it (e.g. .inc has INC_PR, but then
.bb just defines PR = "rX").
>From my previous experience with oe-dev, I found INC_PR very usefull
and error-prone feature.
