This mail was sent out by Package Report System.
It will list all the recipes which can't check upstream version by script, and
will show how long it is since their last mannual version check.
You can check the detail information at
http://packages.yoctoproject.org/manuallychkinfo
PackageName
This mail was sent out by Package Report System.
This message list those recipes which need to be upgraded. If maintainers
believe some of them needn't to upgrade this time, they can fill in
RECIPE_NO_UPDATE_REASON_pn-"xxx" in upstream_tracking files to ignore this
recipe remainder until newer u
Hi Gary,
Just a heads up. This issue should now be resolved in the current master of
poky. A patch went into bitbake to fix up the double appending of bbappends.
http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/poky/commit/?id=f91a3f46a1ee586e330be0868e8fbc4d2e78d361
Regards,
Nathan
> -Original M
Hi Nicolas,
You were indeed correct with the string comparison being at fault, it should be
doing a '==' instead of 'in'.
I have already submitted the patch to bitbake, and it appears to have already
been accepted, and also has trickled down to Poky.
http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/bit
On 2013-12-01 07:59, Nicolas Dechesne wrote:
On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Gary Thomas mailto:g...@mlbassoc.com>> wrote:
Yes, I am using master: 937663bdeca6d6479e0db2a9578588__b1aa20222c
At least I am not hallucinating!
can you try to revert the same commit as in the other thread?
On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Gary Thomas wrote:
> Yes, I am using master: 937663bdeca6d6479e0db2a9578588b1aa20222c
>
> At least I am not hallucinating!
>
can you try to revert the same commit as in the other thread?
commit 381d5920188398bc53b2454843054c8690bca243
Author: Saul Wold
Date: T
On 2013-12-01 07:37, Nicolas Dechesne wrote:
On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Gary Thomas mailto:g...@mlbassoc.com>> wrote:
I can see by the copied comment (#) lines that this fragment
is coming exactly from 'installer_0.0.bbappend'
This looks totally wrong to me. Am I missing some
On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Gary Thomas wrote:
> I can see by the copied comment (#) lines that this fragment
> is coming exactly from 'installer_0.0.bbappend'
>
> This looks totally wrong to me. Am I missing something (and
> it should work this way)??
>
are you on master? a 'somehow' simil
I'm having a very strange behaviour in one of my recipes. I have two
recipes which are tightly coupled. In one, the 'disk-installer', I'd
like to reuse a source file from another 'installer' so that I only need
to make changes in a single place (good practice). To this end, I have
a structure l
