If you've ever struggled with writing a recipe, the Yocto Project has some
new documentation that extensively covers the
topichttp://www.yoctoproject.org/docs/current/dev-manual/dev-manual.html#new-recipe-writing-a-new-recipe.
Do note that this is from the Yocto 1.6 documentation which was just
This was actually intended to go to an internal mailing list for my
company. Anyone on yocto@yoctoproject.org can safely ignore this (although
that documentation is useful!).
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 8:46 AM, Jerrod Peach pea...@lexmark.com wrote:
If you've ever struggled with writing a recipe
I think it's probably worth concentrating on the first issue. I can run
some
tests, but the question is are you able to elaborate on what builds might
have
been done before the user runs the problem build, and the nature of any
changes that were made between prior builds and the failing
explain how to avoid it (other than turning rm_work off, which I suspect
would fix the problem but cost us a bunch of disk space as a trade-off).
-- Forwarded message --
From: Jerrod Peach pea...@lexmark.com
Date: Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:28 PM
Subject: Yocto 1.4: Bad behavior between
Aha. And apparently there was a typo in the README that lead you down the
wrong path. Looks like it just got fixed.
(Btw I meant to leave the response on-list last time, so I'm bringing this
back on-list.)
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 11:42 AM, Jerrod Peach pea...@lexmark.com wrote:
Ram,
Looks
are welcome along with any other
observations.
** **
Thanks,
Scott
** **
*From:* Jerrod Peach [mailto:pea...@lexmark.com]
*Sent:* Tuesday, June 25, 2013 11:07 AM
*To:* Rifenbark, Scott M
*Cc:* yocto@yoctoproject.org; Paul Eggleton
*Subject:* Re: [yocto] Layer input
Scott,
I think the general diagram looks pretty good, although I'd argue there's a
little too much detail in the file list being shown, or else some of this
new stuff is going to be useful in 1.5 when it's not doing anything in 1.4.
Here are the files I see as excessive:
In meta-yocto:
-
All,
Since upgrading to Yocto 1.4, several people at our organization have
noticed a couple of weird build failures related to rm_work and packaging.
Here are the two failure scenarios:
1) A user builds package, but bitbake only re-runs the do_pkg_write_rpm
task without having run any other
thoughts on this issue?
Kind regards,
Jerrod
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Mark Hatle mark.ha...@windriver.comwrote:
On 3/26/13 7:53 AM, Jerrod Peach wrote:
As part of my company's firmware builds, we have to build some code that
only a
handful of developers are allowed to view. We
As part of my company's firmware builds, we have to build some code that
only a handful of developers are allowed to view. We call this restricted
source code. Getting our official system builds to build this code isn't
a problem. What is a problem is a regular developer's build of this code.
Has anyone tried building Android within Yocto? It may sound kind of crazy
(I'm not convinced it's not), but I find myself in a situation where it
might be beneficial for me to build Android within Yocto. Does a recipe or
layer exist for this purpose already? If so, where may I find it?
Kind
Hans,
Are you sure you're seeing the patch system use $WORKDIR instead of $S as
the root for patching? I've had to do a lot of patching in our own layers
recently and I've always seen $S used as the root for the patch. Are you
explicitly setting S = ${WORKDIR}/git? That's what we do for our
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Hans Beckerus hans.becke...@gmail.comwrote:
On 2013-03-07 8:11, Jerrod Peach wrote:
Hans,
Are you sure you're seeing the patch system use $WORKDIR instead of $S
as the root for patching? I've had to do a lot of patching in our own
layers recently and I've
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Darren Hart dvh...@linux.intel.comwrote:
What is the practice for SRC_URI checksums? I see many recipes with both
md5sum and sha256sum. Is there a need to have both? Is one preferred
over the other?
Thanks,
--
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Rifenbark, Scott M
scott.m.rifenb...@intel.com wrote:
Hi,
I need a description of the SRCPV variable for the YP reference glossary.
I have been told that it is generated and not assigned and that it is used
to define PV values that include the source
All,
I'm getting a failure in do_configure when trying to build systemd from
meta-systemd:
my
path/poky/build/tmp/sysroots/x86_64-linux/usr/bin/i586-poky-linux/../../lib/i586-poky-linux/gcc/i586-poky-
linux/4.7.2/include-fixed/limits.h:169:61: error: no include path in which
to search for
Tino,
SRCREV = ${AUTOREV}
You can read a little more about that in these two docs:
http://www.yoctoproject.org/docs/current/poky-ref-manual/poky-ref-manual.html#ref-variables-glossary
http://www.yoctoproject.org/docs/1.3/dev-manual/dev-manual.html#platdev-appdev-srcrev
Kind regards,
Jerrod
Robert,
For the specific topic of SRC_URI += vs. SRC_URI_append, I personally
prefer the former over the latter, but I'm not an expert by any means.
As for the topic of a style guide, such a thing already exists on the Wiki:
https://wiki.yoctoproject.org/wiki/Recipe_%26_Patch_Style_Guide. That
Any thoughts on this? Should I log a bug in bugzilla, or am I just doing
something wrong?
On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 10:57 AM, Jerrod Peach pea...@lexmark.com wrote:
All,
I noticed the changes to recrdeptask from Yocto 1.2 to Yocto 1.3. I saw a
number of all tasks in the classes change like
All,
I noticed the changes to recrdeptask from Yocto 1.2 to Yocto 1.3. I saw a
number of all tasks in the classes change like this:
-do_checkuriall[recrdeptask] = do_checkuri
+do_checkuriall[recrdeptask] = do_checkuriall do_checkuri
I have my own task that needs to work on all packages, and I
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 3:35 AM, Chris Tapp opensou...@keylevel.com wrote:
I'm just getting round to moving from 'denzil' to 'danny'. I've got a
layer that makes some changes to a few recipes through bbappend files.
However, 'danny' has bumped a few of these to a new version (which is
good)
All,
My company has traditionally built all their code on 32-bit systems for
32-bit target architectures. We're now trying to move our build hosts to
64-bit OSes, but that's presenting us with a bit of a problem: some
non-trivial number of native packages don't want to properly build 64-bit
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 12:33 AM, Joshua Immanuel j...@hipro.co.in wrote:
Hello Liu,
On Fri, 2012-11-16 at 11:06 +0800, Liu wrote:
I'm writing a recipe and come up with a question.I want to invoke
the the workdir of package A in my recipe of package B. I tried to use
the variable
Seth,
Like Tomas said, it's hard to say for sure without seeing the recipe in
question, but I know one way this could happen: AUTOREV, by itself, does
not permute your hash. It ends up just resolving to the string AUTOINC
every time. You *also *need the SRCPV variable somewhere in your recipe,
Correction: I'm wrong on the standard for PV. The standard (after looking
through some BB files) appears to be this:
PV = version number+vcs${SRCPV}
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 8:46 AM, Jerrod Peach pea...@lexmark.com wrote:
Seth,
Like Tomas said, it's hard to say for sure without seeing
All,
I ran into an issue yesterday when trying to run the openssl binary that
comes out of the openssl-native package. I had previously built
openssl-native in another location as another user, and that sstate entry
was copied out to an sstate mirror. I then built openssl-native in my
personal
Tomas,
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 3:59 AM, Tomas Frydrych
tf+lists.yo...@r-finger.comwrote:
However, we'll likely have at least a hundred
packages for which we need to set/manipulate revisions. I would think
that
would get cumbersome, and in an organization the size of ours (500 or so
Tomas,
Sounds to me like your situation implies a single distro + multiple
machines, one for each distinct printer model; you can then specify
revisions on per-machine basis.
I don't think that's actually what we want. The architecture of each
machine will be the same. That is, one ASIC
28 matches
Mail list logo
