Re: any ETA on a working dev beagleboard demo image?

["John \(GMail\)" <john3909@gmail.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: openembedded-devel-bounces@lists.openembedded.org
> [mailto:openembedded-devel-bounces@lists.openembedded.org] On Behalf Of
> Marcin Juszkiewicz
> Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2009 4:01 PM
> To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> Subject: Re: [oe] any ETA on a working dev beagleboard demo image?
> 
> Dnia niedziela, 15 listopada 2009 o 15:56:36 Robert P. J. Day napisał(a):
> 
> >   yes, i know i'm sounding like a broken record, but i have an invite
> > to give a short local demo of the beagleboard this tuesday and i'd
> > like to do it with an angstrom development demo image, just because i
> > prefer to live out there on the edge.
> 
> You can always move back to some revision before recent changes happened,
> you
> can use Angstrom narcissus to generate working image.
I can confirm that beagleboard-demo-image builds successfully on both the DEV and the Stable branches using Ubuntu 9.10 x64. My last build was based on SHA1 ID: 916ed3c
> 
> >   at the moment, there is just the one package standing in the way --
> > guile-native -- and as i recall, someone posted what looked like a
> > manual fix.  is that being turned into a patch at any point?
> 
> Did you tried to make it a patch? Patches are always welcome.
> 
> > i realize i'm nagging, but it's literally been *weeks* since that
> > particular bitbake target actually built, and every time it looks like
> > it's getting close to being buildable, more packages break.
> 
> Maybe start tagging your copy of OE to know which version was buildable for
> you? It will make life easier to make 'git bisect' to find out what broke it.
> 
> > i appreciate that development means exactly that but, at the very
> > least, even the development branch should *build*, even if there are
> > run issues.
> 
> No, it is not 'org.openembedded.always-building' branch. This is development
> branch where everything can happen. At OEDEM it was decided that many core
> changes will be made and we accepted some breakage during that time. We are
> working on making it buildable again but testing takes time.
> 
> > p.s.  perhaps it would be useful to start tagging the development
> > branch at points where it builds, just so someone can always retreat
> > to the most recent known good build.
> 
> "where it builds" is not a definition. For me one revision builds for
> at91sam9263ek/x11-image target but not for progear/xfce-image for example. Or
> build on my Debian system but breaks in Ubuntu 9.04 virtual. There is no such
> thing as 'it builds for everyone' and you should know that from your xterm-207
> problem which was not a problem for me (as it was building under my Debian and
> I do not have a client who would use Fedora for builds).
> 
> > or perhaps start a branch named, oh, "bleeding", which, when it builds
> > properly, can be merged back into development.  whatever.  but it
> > strikes me that it's overwhelmingly pointless to have a development
> > branch that doesn't build since that gives no one the opportunity to
> > actually test it.
> 
> There is a tag on .dev branch which marks moment before OE core changes
> landed: "pre-nov2009-core-updates" - maybe checkout that version and just
> cherry-pick those updates which are needed to make OE buildable for you?
> 
> Regards,
> --
> JID:      hrw@jabber.org
> Website:  http://marcin.juszkiewicz.com.pl/
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcinjuszkiewicz
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel