2010/10/15 Khem Raj :
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 8:36 PM, Chris Larson wrote:
>> From: Chris Larson
>>
>> Given the current implementation of OVERRIDES in bitbake, the variable is
>> expected to contain elements in the order least specific to most specific,
>> however, our current usage of it does
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 1:07 PM, J. L. wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 1:09 PM, J. L. wrote:
>> I originally posted this on the gumstix mailing list and was told I
>> should ask here. I was wondering how come there is no libgcc-dev.ipk
>> that gets created though its in the work directory? I was
We manually move libstdc++ to staging sysroot from default install
location where gcc-cross installed it. During this process we have
to make sure that .la files are edited to contain proper libdir
entry pointing relative to sysroot.
Signed-off-by: Khem Raj
---
recipes/gcc/gcc-package-cross.inc
shared version of libgcc is also installed by gcc-cross-intermediate
which we did not move to staging as a result cross gcc found this libgcc
and used it compailing about missing libc.so stuff.
Signed-off-by: Khem Raj
---
recipes/gcc/gcc-cross-intermediate.inc | 10 +-
1 files changed,
2010/10/14 Chris Larson :
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 1:14 PM, Ash Charles wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> At what point in bitbaking a recipe is it safe to start modifying the
>> recipe without risk of messing up the current bitbake build? I often
>> find myself kicking off a bitbake and then wanting to do
Signed-off-by: Simon Busch
---
recipes/python/python-pycairo_1.4.0.bb |4 ++--
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/recipes/python/python-pycairo_1.4.0.bb
b/recipes/python/python-pycairo_1.4.0.bb
index 94bb338..b0cbf95 100644
--- a/recipes/python/python-pycairo_1.4.
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 8:36 PM, Chris Larson wrote:
> From: Chris Larson
>
> Given the current implementation of OVERRIDES in bitbake, the variable is
> expected to contain elements in the order least specific to most specific,
> however, our current usage of it does not match that. As one exam
From: Chris Larson
Given the current implementation of OVERRIDES in bitbake, the variable is
expected to contain elements in the order least specific to most specific,
however, our current usage of it does not match that. As one example, "local"
is supposed to always be the most specific overrid
Greetings all,
There is a new 1.10 bugfix release available: 1.10.1.
As usual, there is a tag in the git repository, as well as pristine-tar
metadata, and of course the release tarball is available on berliOS:
http://download.berlios.de/bitbake/bitbake-1.10.1.tar.gz
Changes in Bitbake 1.10.1:
Greetings all,
There is a new 1.10 bugfix release available: 1.10.1.
As usual, there is a tag in the git repository, as well as pristine-tar
metadata, and of course the release tarball is available on berliOS:
http://download.berlios.de/bitbake/bitbake-1.10.1.tar.gz
Changes in Bitbake 1.10.1:
master has been merged to the testing-next branch and is now ready for
clean builds. I'll finish tagging and updating the testing branch
later today. It looks like enough things passed to justify moving the
testing branch to testing_2010-10-08.
Thanks,
Cliff
--
=
http://bec-sys
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Chris Larson wrote:
> So, basically, continue to resist the urge :)
That makes sense. Thanks Chris.
-Ash
___
Openembedded-devel mailing list
Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 1:14 PM, Ash Charles wrote:
> Hi,
>
> At what point in bitbaking a recipe is it safe to start modifying the
> recipe without risk of messing up the current bitbake build? I often
> find myself kicking off a bitbake and then wanting to do some git
> operations in my openem
Hi,
At what point in bitbaking a recipe is it safe to start modifying the
recipe without risk of messing up the current bitbake build? I often
find myself kicking off a bitbake and then wanting to do some git
operations in my openembedded recipes tree. Previously I've resisted
the urge to mess a
> -Original Message-
> From: openembedded-devel-boun...@lists.openembedded.org
> [mailto:openembedded-devel-boun...@lists.openembedded.org] On Behalf Of
> Chris Larson
> Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 11:42 AM
> To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> Subject: Re: [oe] Question ab
triggered by a remark on irc, I decided to do a grep on "" in all our recipes.
That gave some interesting observations. I've fixed a few things from
the type X += "" or X_append = ""
See the patch set I just send.
However there are also a few things that are not so obvious and for
which I want to
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 9:37 AM, Maupin, Chase wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: openembedded-devel-boun...@lists.openembedded.org
> > [mailto:openembedded-devel-boun...@lists.openembedded.org] On Behalf Of
> > Chris Larson
> > Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 10:34 AM
> > To: opene
Signed-off-by: Frans Meulenbroeks
---
recipes/kaffe/kaffe-gtk_cvs.bb |2 --
1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/recipes/kaffe/kaffe-gtk_cvs.bb b/recipes/kaffe/kaffe-gtk_cvs.bb
index d75eb63..a96bd59 100644
--- a/recipes/kaffe/kaffe-gtk_cvs.bb
+++ b/recipes/kaffe/kaf
Signed-off-by: Frans Meulenbroeks
---
recipes/kaffe/kaffe-gtk_1.1.5.bb |2 --
1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/recipes/kaffe/kaffe-gtk_1.1.5.bb b/recipes/kaffe/kaffe-gtk_1.1.5.bb
index f4e9b93..c58aa41 100644
--- a/recipes/kaffe/kaffe-gtk_1.1.5.bb
+++ b/recipes/k
Signed-off-by: Frans Meulenbroeks
---
recipes/mono/mono-native_2.6.3.bb |2 --
1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/recipes/mono/mono-native_2.6.3.bb
b/recipes/mono/mono-native_2.6.3.bb
index 03820d3..e08edbb 100644
--- a/recipes/mono/mono-native_2.6.3.bb
+++ b/reci
Signed-off-by: Frans Meulenbroeks
---
recipes/mono/mono-mcs-intermediate_2.6.3.bb |2 --
1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/recipes/mono/mono-mcs-intermediate_2.6.3.bb
b/recipes/mono/mono-mcs-intermediate_2.6.3.bb
index cd5bcae..8aa54d3 100644
--- a/recipes/mono/m
Signed-off-by: Frans Meulenbroeks
---
recipes/avahi/avahi.inc |1 -
1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/recipes/avahi/avahi.inc b/recipes/avahi/avahi.inc
index 4ffb6d5..385450d 100644
--- a/recipes/avahi/avahi.inc
+++ b/recipes/avahi/avahi.inc
@@ -17,7 +17,6 @@ SRC_
> -Original Message-
> From: openembedded-devel-boun...@lists.openembedded.org
> [mailto:openembedded-devel-boun...@lists.openembedded.org] On Behalf Of
> Chris Larson
> Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 10:34 AM
> To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> Subject: Re: [oe] Question ab
Signed-off-by: Frans Meulenbroeks
---
recipes/directfb/directfb_1.2.8.bb |2 --
1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/recipes/directfb/directfb_1.2.8.bb
b/recipes/directfb/directfb_1.2.8.bb
index 35eb7c6..a6cf68f 100644
--- a/recipes/directfb/directfb_1.2.8.bb
+++ b/
Signed-off-by: Frans Meulenbroeks
---
recipes/gsm/gsmd.inc |1 -
1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/recipes/gsm/gsmd.inc b/recipes/gsm/gsmd.inc
index 1b8ad29..5210edd 100644
--- a/recipes/gsm/gsmd.inc
+++ b/recipes/gsm/gsmd.inc
@@ -16,7 +16,6 @@ S = "${WORKDIR}/gsm
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 8:29 AM, Maupin, Chase wrote:
> So are you saying that we are just going to change the order of how
> OVERRIDES is appended to in OE like Denys was suggesting? That would still
> lead to issues like local not being the highest priority unless we would
> also change bitbak
> -Original Message-
> From: openembedded-devel-boun...@lists.openembedded.org
> [mailto:openembedded-devel-boun...@lists.openembedded.org] On Behalf Of
> Chris Larson
> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 4:39 PM
> To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> Subject: Re: [oe] Question ab
When trying to build angstrom-2008.1 from
f58a5d59b755bdb725497f574a8059529c134c27 of master or from
b78fc95424b5f0fb28246e8c61bb8b4d6a9d733a of stable/2009 the builds failed on
gmp-native (then later gmp). The error was that "--target is not appropriate
for GMP".
To avoid the error printed by the
Hello,
>>Then go ahead and modify your tree to do so, but don't expect OE to
come
>>that way out of the box.
I've done so, but things may be much easier if the recipes are tuned to
read only usage.
It is possibe, but the use cases may be too wide to do it in general.
Regards
Wolfgang
__
Thank you Chris et al. for your reply.
Even if I told you in my last
mail I had no chanche to investigate further, I took some time to burn
some SD and tried to understand the topic.
Well, in my build machine, 4
packages remain unpacked:
openssh-sshd
net-snmp-server
udev
update-
modules
But, si
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 7:33 AM, Hauser, Wolfgang (external) <
wolfgang.hauser.exter...@cassidian.com> wrote:
> for me the S98configure is a NO GO !
> I have to provide read only images that have to be used w/o any first boot
> configurations.
>
> For me there is no necessary to final install a im
On Thu, 2010-10-14 at 06:59 -0700, Chris Larson wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 6:23 AM, Koen Kooi wrote:
> > Isn't the definition covered in the bitbake docs? I'm in favour of
> > fixing bitbake instead working around it in OE.
> >
>
> As far as I can tell:
> 1. The bitbake docs don't cover the
Hello,
for me the S98configure is a NO GO !
I have to provide read only images that have to be used w/o any first boot
configurations.
For me there is no necessary to final install a image at first boot.
Normally all configurations are able to be done at image creation time by some
scripting.
In contrast to SIOCOUTQ which returns the amount of data sent
but not yet acknowledged plus data not yet sent this patch only
returns the data not sent.
For various methods of live streaming bitrate control it may
be helpful to know how much data are in the tcp outqueue are
not sent yet.
Signed-o
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 2:32 AM, l.bologn...@tiscali.it <
l.bologn...@tiscali.it> wrote:
> I'm wondering what is the role of this script, placed in /etc/rcS.d.
>
> What I guess is that, for some reasons, some packages get installed but
> not configured (then unpacked) since their postinstall scrip
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 6:23 AM, Koen Kooi wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 13-10-10 23:38, Chris Larson wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Maupin, Chase
> wrote:
> >
> >> That was my thought as well but I can consistently cause this issue. I
> >> have tes
Koen Kooi [2010-10-14 15:22:05]:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 14-10-10 14:45, Petr Štetiar wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I've been asked if I could add support for the ts7400 board/machine in the
> > OE.
> > It's not a big deal, it's just an addition of one patch to the ke
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 13-10-10 23:38, Chris Larson wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Maupin, Chase wrote:
>
>> That was my thought as well but I can consistently cause this issue. I
>> have tested a quick change that seems to fix the issue by reversing the lis
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 14-10-10 14:45, Petr Štetiar wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've been asked if I could add support for the ts7400 board/machine in the OE.
> It's not a big deal, it's just an addition of one patch to the kernel recipe.
>
> While I'll be into it, I was thinking
Hi,
I've been asked if I could add support for the ts7400 board/machine in the OE.
It's not a big deal, it's just an addition of one patch to the kernel recipe.
While I'll be into it, I was thinking about adding the base for the possible
future addition of ts7300[2] boards also. Althought I own o
On 10/14/2010 03:26 AM, Nicolas Ferre wrote:
Le 13/10/2010 19:51, Denys Dmytriyenko :
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 10:53:14PM +0200, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
2010/10/12 Raffaele Recalcati:
I'm interested in attending to OEDEM for friday morning.
I have added myself to the list "Attending for sure
Signed-off-by: Tasslehoff Kjappfot
---
.../0001-log4cxx_0-10-0_add-missing-includes.patch | 50
.../0002-Remove-duplicates-from-makefile.patch | 39 +++
recipes/log4cxx/log4cxx_0.10.0.bb | 18 +++
3 files changed, 107 insertions(+),
2010/10/14 Graeme Gregory :
> On 13/10/2010 19:00, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
>> 2010/10/13 Denys Dmytriyenko :
>>> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 10:53:14PM +0200, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
2010/10/12 Raffaele Recalcati :
> I'm interested in attending to OEDEM for friday morning.
> I have ad
On 13/10/2010 19:00, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
> 2010/10/13 Denys Dmytriyenko :
>> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 10:53:14PM +0200, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
>>> 2010/10/12 Raffaele Recalcati :
I'm interested in attending to OEDEM for friday morning.
I have added myself to the list "Attending
I'm wondering what is the role of this script, placed in /etc/rcS.d.
What I guess is that, for some reasons, some packages get installed but
not configured (then unpacked) since their postinstall script returns
non zero value.
Here it is a small extract of rootfs_ipk.bbclass:
for
i in ${IMAGE_
Am Mittwoch, den 13.10.2010, 09:23 -0700 schrieb Khem Raj:
> On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 5:01 AM, Paul Menzel wrote:
> >$ bitbake console-image
> >[…]
> >| make[1]: Leaving directory
> > `/oe/build-minimal-eglibc/minimal-dev/work/armv7a-oe-linux-gnueabi/eglibc-initial-2.12-r15
On 14-Oct-2010, at 7:39 AM, Khem Raj wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Sean Cross wrote:
>>
>> The syntax of one of the AC_CHECK_FUNCS is incorrect. Removing the
>> lines in question allows the package to configure and build.
>
>
> instead of removing the check completely it would be
Get configure to work with our version of autoconf by fixing
the syntax of configure.ac
---
recipes/c-ares/0001-fix-configure.ac.patch | 12
recipes/c-ares/c-ares_1.5.3.bb |4 +++-
2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 recipes/c-ares/0
Le 13/10/2010 19:51, Denys Dmytriyenko :
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 10:53:14PM +0200, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
>> 2010/10/12 Raffaele Recalcati :
>>> I'm interested in attending to OEDEM for friday morning.
>>> I have added myself to the list "Attending for sure", even if I'm not
>>> a skilled OE
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
For the angstrom part:
Signed-off-by: Koen Kooi
On 13-10-10 23:26, Ben Gardiner wrote:
> Trying to use an external toolchain like the 2009q1 toolchain from
> codesourcery
> has some strange results since the toolchain has vendor 'none' but
> distri
Until now there is now way to indicate that the libgee.inc common part of
libgee has
changed - the PR is only defined in the specific version recipes. This adds the
INC_PR var
to to the common libgee.inc and use it in the specific version recipes.
INC_PR is initial set to the highest value of bot
Signed-off-by: Simon Busch
---
recipes/libgee/libgee.inc |4 ++--
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/recipes/libgee/libgee.inc b/recipes/libgee/libgee.inc
index 5148386..ed86554 100644
--- a/recipes/libgee/libgee.inc
+++ b/recipes/libgee/libgee.inc
@@ -2,10 +2,10 @
Heyho,
the last commits did some work the libgee recipes which will be fixed with the
following
two patches. The first one adds a INC_PR var to indicate changes in the common
libgee.inc
recipe. The second one removes the dependency on gobject-introspection as it is
not needed
for libgee to comp
53 matches
Mail list logo
