Hi Ross, Thanks for responding.
On May 23, 2013, at 3:37 AM, "Burton, Ross" <ross.bur...@intel.com> wrote: > On 16 May 2013 22:53, Ben Warren <ben.war...@spidercloud.com> wrote: >> I'm having other Yocto problems using the stock Ubuntu x86_64 toolchain, so >> decided to install >> one using the instructions in section 2.1.2 (Using a Cross-Toolchain >> Tarball) of the "Yocto >> Project Application Developer's Guide". > > What are these other problems? Ubuntu should work fine as a host. Other issues were mainly due to me working my way up the Yocto learning curve. I'm now able to build a working image using Ubuntu's host tools. That said, I'm looking at moving building away from Ubuntu and on to our corporate build servers, which run CentOS 5. Some of these are running a 32-bit OS and some a 64-bit one, and default Python has to be 2.4. I've hacked bitbake to use another Python installation, but don't want to rely on the host compiler tools. All of our existing targets (non-x86) use cross-building tools which are self-contained. I'd like to have something similar for this target since it's much easier to version control. From the Yocto documentation, it looks like getting bitbake to make me an SDK is the answer. Too bad it doesn't seem to be that easy :( > > >> ImportError: No module named fcntl >> ======== >> >> So it looks like the Python included with the SDK is crippled or >> mis-configured: > > Yeah, the Python we build is split up massively, so clearly the SDK is > missing the packages that are needed to run bitbake. But as I said, > using our SDK to build is over-complicating things as Ubuntu should > work fine. What problems were you seeing? > > Ross regards, Ben _______________________________________________ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
