Re: [yocto] bitbake -c devshell option

2012-12-18 Thread Marco C.
2012/12/9 Bruce Ashfield bruce.ashfi...@gmail.com: As Chris said, this way should still work, and it does work here for me. There's one thing that you may notice with kernel's that have split source/build dirs (like linux-yocto), is that once you have gone through the configure phase and

Re: [yocto] bitbake -c devshell option

2012-12-18 Thread Bruce Ashfield
On 12-12-18 10:45 AM, Marco C. wrote: 2012/12/9 Bruce Ashfield bruce.ashfi...@gmail.com: As Chris said, this way should still work, and it does work here for me. There's one thing that you may notice with kernel's that have split source/build dirs (like linux-yocto), is that once you have gone

[yocto] bitbake -c devshell option

2012-12-09 Thread Marco
Hello, I was used to work with oe-classic. When I used oe-classic, often I used the 'devshell' option to try to compile (make uImage) the kernel with the entire environment set up correctly. Now if I do the same procedure with Yocto 8 Danny it does not work. For example I'm using a default

Re: [yocto] bitbake -c devshell option

2012-12-09 Thread Chris Larson
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Marco koansoftw...@gmail.com wrote: I was used to work with oe-classic. When I used oe-classic, often I used the 'devshell' option to try to compile (make uImage) the kernel with the entire environment set up correctly. Now if I do the same procedure with

Re: [yocto] bitbake -c devshell option

2012-12-09 Thread Bruce Ashfield
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Marco koansoftw...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, I was used to work with oe-classic. When I used oe-classic, often I used the 'devshell' option to try to compile (make uImage) the kernel with the entire environment set up correctly. Now if I do the same procedure