Re: [yocto] Host contamination that isn't

2016-03-15 Thread Gary Thomas
On 03/15/2016 12:44 PM, Burton, Ross wrote: On 9 March 2016 at 08:28, Gary Thomas > wrote: BTW, if I run 'bitbake -c cleanall' where is the name of my recipe that is creating a user (in this case amanda), shouldn't that user/group be

Re: [yocto] Host contamination that isn't

2016-03-15 Thread Burton, Ross
On 9 March 2016 at 08:28, Gary Thomas wrote: > BTW, if I run 'bitbake -c cleanall' where is the > name of my recipe that is creating a user (in this case amanda), shouldn't > that user/group be removed from the sysroot? It's not and it took me a > long time to realize this

Re: [yocto] Host contamination that isn't

2016-03-09 Thread Gary Thomas
On 2016-03-09 08:50, Gary Thomas wrote: On 2016-03-08 14:33, Gary Thomas wrote: I'm getting a lot of messages like this: amanda: /amanda/usr/sbin/amtoc is owned by uid 1000, which is the same as the user running bitbake. This may be due to host contamination amanda:

Re: [yocto] Host contamination that isn't

2016-03-08 Thread Gary Thomas
On 2016-03-08 14:33, Gary Thomas wrote: I'm getting a lot of messages like this: amanda: /amanda/usr/sbin/amtoc is owned by uid 1000, which is the same as the user running bitbake. This may be due to host contamination amanda: /amanda/usr/sbin/amcrypt-ossl is owned by uid 1000, which is

[yocto] Host contamination that isn't

2016-03-08 Thread Gary Thomas
I'm getting a lot of messages like this: amanda: /amanda/usr/sbin/amtoc is owned by uid 1000, which is the same as the user running bitbake. This may be due to host contamination amanda: /amanda/usr/sbin/amcrypt-ossl is owned by uid 1000, which is the same as the user running bitbake. This