#This is unrelated to the kernel version, but userspace apps (e.g. HAL)
require a recent version to build against
-PREFERRED_VERSION_linux-libc-headers = 2.6.31
+PREFERRED_VERSION_linux-libc-headers ?= 2.6.31
+PREFERRED_VERSION_linux-libc-headers_hipox ?= 2.6.24
NACK, that
On Fri, May 07, 2010 at 05:04:27PM +0200, Steffen Sledz wrote:
Configuring busybox-syslog.
update-rc.d: /etc/init.d/syslog: file does not exist
update-alternatives: Linking //etc/init.d/syslog to syslog.busybox
Are you sure that you run the patched version? It looks like
running a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10-05-10 09:36, Steffen Sledz wrote:
#This is unrelated to the kernel version, but userspace apps (e.g. HAL)
require a recent version to build against
-PREFERRED_VERSION_linux-libc-headers = 2.6.31
+PREFERRED_VERSION_linux-libc-headers
2010/5/9 Tom Rini tom_r...@mentor.com:
On Sat, 2010-05-08 at 08:11 -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
On Sat, 2010-05-08 at 09:06 +0200, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
2010/5/7 Tom Rini tom_r...@mentor.com:
Hey all,
With DISTRO=minimal and MACHINE=calamari, I see the following failure in
gnutls
On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 7:31 PM, Abhishek Sharma
spyzer.abhish...@gmail.comwrote:
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 4:51 PM, Koen Kooi k.k...@student.utwente.nlwrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06-05-10 12:55, Abhishek Sharma wrote:
About the /dev node, there is no such
Hi,
A question, (perhaps for the TSC?):
What's the minimum Python version we want to support in OE?
According to the wiki we support Python 2.4 and above but I wonder if
people have any thoughts with regards to bumping it?
The reason I ask is because I had a user contact me about using
On Mon, 2010-05-10 at 10:34 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10-05-10 09:36, Steffen Sledz wrote:
#This is unrelated to the kernel version, but userspace apps (e.g.
HAL) require a recent version to build against
On (10/05/10 10:40), Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
2010/5/9 Tom Rini tom_r...@mentor.com:
On Sat, 2010-05-08 at 08:11 -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
On Sat, 2010-05-08 at 09:06 +0200, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
2010/5/7 Tom Rini tom_r...@mentor.com:
Hey all,
With DISTRO=minimal and
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 11:14:14AM +0200, David MOUSSAUD wrote:
Hi all,
I'm trying to use an external toolchain with OE.
So I've build one using the recipe meta-toolchain.bb with an angstrom
distribution. I'm on the org.openembedded.dev branch (updated
recently).
I've extracted the 2
On (10/05/10 09:55), Tom Rini wrote:
On Mon, 2010-05-10 at 16:53 +0200, Thilo Fromm wrote:
Hello Guys,
this is a somewhat cumulated response - I'd like to address some of the
things mentioned at different points in the discussion in one place.
Please forgive me should I misquote
On Mon, 2010-05-10 at 16:53 +0200, Thilo Fromm wrote:
Hello Guys,
this is a somewhat cumulated response - I'd like to address some of the
things mentioned at different points in the discussion in one place.
Please forgive me should I misquote things.
Graeme Gregory in
Hi
I would like to propose to move gcc 4.4.3 recipes to gcc 4.4.4,
there are no additional patches that we need and 4.4.4 is superset
of bugfixes. I want to avoid adding additional recipes if we could.
4.4.3 is not so widely used in distributions unlike 4.4.2
I can also just add 4.4.4 and leave
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 04:27:20PM -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
Hi
I would like to propose to move gcc 4.4.3 recipes to gcc 4.4.4,
there are no additional patches that we need and 4.4.4 is superset
of bugfixes. I want to avoid adding additional recipes if we could.
4.4.3 is not so widely used in
On (11/05/10 06:37), Martin Jansa wrote:
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 04:27:20PM -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
Hi
I would like to propose to move gcc 4.4.3 recipes to gcc 4.4.4,
there are no additional patches that we need and 4.4.4 is superset
of bugfixes. I want to avoid adding additional
14 matches
Mail list logo
