Yocto 2.2 Morty supported Linux Distros

Yocto 2.2 Morty supported Linux Distros

[Vuille, Martin (Martin)]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 332 bytes --]

Noticed that Ubuntu 16.04 LTS is not on the list of supported
distributions for Morty.

Is that correct/intentional, or a documentation oversight?
Ubuntu 16.04 is mentioned elsewhere in the docs.

We are planning to upgrade from Ubuntu 12.04 LTS and it would
make more sense to go to the latest LTS rather than 14.04.

MV

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2306 bytes --]

Re: Yocto 2.2 Morty supported Linux Distros

[Herman van Hazendonk]

Hi Martin,

I would be surprised if it isn't. I've been running meta-openembedded 
and openembedded-core in our project without
any issues on 16.04 with both Krogoth and Morty.

Would be good if the project team can confirm though.

Herman

On 2016-11-01 16:19, Vuille, Martin (Martin) wrote:
> Noticed that Ubuntu 16.04 LTS is not on the list of supported
> 
> distributions for Morty.
> 
> Is that correct/intentional, or a documentation oversight?
> 
> Ubuntu 16.04 is mentioned elsewhere in the docs.
> 
> We are planning to upgrade from Ubuntu 12.04 LTS and it would
> 
> make more sense to go to the latest LTS rather than 14.04.
> 
> MV

Re: Yocto 2.2 Morty supported Linux Distros

[Burton, Ross]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1019 bytes --]

On 1 November 2016 at 15:19, Vuille, Martin (Martin) <vmartin@avaya.com>
wrote:

> Is that correct/intentional, or a documentation oversight?
>
> Ubuntu 16.04 is mentioned elsewhere in the docs.
>
>
That's a mistake, I consider the whitelist assignment in poky.conf to be
canonical and that includes 16.04.

Scott, can you update the list at
http://www.yoctoproject.org/docs/2.2/ref-manual/ref-manual.html#detailed-supported-distros
so that it reflects the list in the code:

SANITY_TESTED_DISTROS ?= " \
            poky-1.8 \n \
            poky-2.0 \n \
            poky-2.1 \n \
            poky-2.2 \n \
            Ubuntu-14.04 \n \
            Ubuntu-14.10 \n \
            Ubuntu-15.04 \n \
            Ubuntu-15.10 \n \
            Ubuntu-16.04 \n \
            Fedora-22 \n \
            Fedora-23 \n \
            Fedora-24 \n \
            CentOSLinux-7.* \n \
            Debian-8.* \n \
            openSUSE-13.2 \n \
            SUSELINUX-42.1 \n \
            "

Ross

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2388 bytes --]

Re: Yocto 2.2 Morty supported Linux Distros

[Vuille, Martin (Martin)]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 593 bytes --]

Thank you for the quick answer
MV

From: Burton, Ross [mailto:ross.burton@intel.com]
Sent: November 01, 2016 11:28
To: Vuille, Martin (Martin); Rifenbark, Scott M
Cc: yocto@yoctoproject.org
Subject: Re: [yocto] Yocto 2.2 Morty supported Linux Distros


On 1 November 2016 at 15:19, Vuille, Martin (Martin) <vmartin@avaya.com<mailto:vmartin@avaya.com>> wrote:
Is that correct/intentional, or a documentation oversight?
Ubuntu 16.04 is mentioned elsewhere in the docs.

That's a mistake, I consider the whitelist assignment in poky.conf to be canonical and that includes 16.04.


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3641 bytes --]

Re: Yocto 2.2 Morty supported Linux Distros

[Bas Mevissen]

On 01/11/16 16:27, Burton, Ross wrote:
>
> That's a mistake, I consider the whitelist assignment in poky.conf to be
> canonical and that includes 16.04.
>

What are the criteria to call a distro supported?

> Scott, can you update the list
> at http://www.yoctoproject.org/docs/2.2/ref-manual/ref-manual.html#detailed-supported-distros
> so that it reflects the list in the code:
>
> SANITY_TESTED_DISTROS ?= " \
>             poky-1.8 \n \
>             poky-2.0 \n \
>             poky-2.1 \n \
>             poky-2.2 \n \
>             Ubuntu-14.04 \n \
>             Ubuntu-14.10 \n \
>             Ubuntu-15.04 \n \
>             Ubuntu-15.10 \n \
>             Ubuntu-16.04 \n \
>             Fedora-22 \n \
>             Fedora-23 \n \
>             Fedora-24 \n \

Fedora 25 should be released in two weeks time 
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/25/Schedule). Can it then still 
be added as a Morty supported distro version?

>             CentOSLinux-7.* \n \

I see in Poky current master when running bitbake:

WARNING: Host distribution "CentOS-7.2.1511" has not been validated with 
this version of the build system; you may possibly experience unexpected 
failures. It is recommended that you use a tested distribution.

It runs fine, but it seems to fail the distro test.

Cheers,

-- 
Bas.

-- 
Bas.

Re: Yocto 2.2 Morty supported Linux Distros

[Burton, Ross]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 511 bytes --]

On 1 November 2016 at 17:05, Bas Mevissen <abuse@basmevissen.nl> wrote:

> What are the criteria to call a distro supported?
>

The short version is that it's a distro that doesn't change too much, is
still supported, and we have builders on autobuilder.yoctoproject.org
running that distro.

The Centos mismatch is annoying, can you please file a bug?

Of course this is just a notice and you're entirely welcome to ignore it,
or even set SANITY_TESTED_DISTROS to "" if you're using poky.

Ross

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1137 bytes --]

Re: Yocto 2.2 Morty supported Linux Distros

[Paul Eggleton]

On Tue, 01 Nov 2016 17:11:21 Burton, Ross wrote:
> On 1 November 2016 at 17:05, Bas Mevissen <abuse@basmevissen.nl> wrote:
> > What are the criteria to call a distro supported?
> 
> The short version is that it's a distro that doesn't change too much, is
> still supported, and we have builders on autobuilder.yoctoproject.org
> running that distro.
> 
> The Centos mismatch is annoying, can you please file a bug?
> 
> Of course this is just a notice and you're entirely welcome to ignore it,
> or even set SANITY_TESTED_DISTROS to "" if you're using poky.

If you're not using a distro on the list (assuming the list is correct and 
complete, of course) what it really means is that you *may* be on your own 
sorting out any distro-related issues, but it doesn't mean that it definitely 
cannot work. There are people running builds regularly on distros that aren't 
on this list successfully, it's just that we can't commit to supporting all of 
the included functionality on all of them.

Cheers,
Paul

-- 

Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre

Re: Yocto 2.2 Morty supported Linux Distros

[Bas Mevissen]

On 01/11/16 18:11, Burton, Ross wrote:
>
> On 1 November 2016 at 17:05, Bas Mevissen <abuse@basmevissen.nl
> <mailto:abuse@basmevissen.nl>> wrote:
>
>     What are the criteria to call a distro supported?
>
> The short version is that it's a distro that doesn't change too much, is
> still supported, and we have builders on autobuilder.yoctoproject.org
> <http://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org> running that distro.
>

OK, clear. However, the "still supported" part would exclude older 
Fedora releases, even while perfectly usable for Yocto.

> The Centos mismatch is annoying, can you please file a bug?
>

Done: https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10577

> Of course this is just a notice and you're entirely welcome to ignore
> it,

It is not really bothering me, but it might be for a novice user or 
someone wanting to run official, central builds on a Centos 7.x host.

> or even set SANITY_TESTED_DISTROS to "" if you're using poky.
>

I added that in the bug report as a side note to add that as a comment 
to poky.conf.

Regards,

-- 
Bas.

Re: Yocto 2.2 Morty supported Linux Distros

[Daniel.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1711 bytes --]

Just as a note, I've been using archlinux for about a year and have never
faced "distro related problems", except when the gcc6 comes out. Anyway I'm
using daisy in my work. I think that making old releases supported by X
distro doesn't make any sense...

Cheers,

2016-11-01 19:36 GMT-02:00 Bas Mevissen <abuse@basmevissen.nl>:

> On 01/11/16 18:11, Burton, Ross wrote:
>
>>
>> On 1 November 2016 at 17:05, Bas Mevissen <abuse@basmevissen.nl
>> <mailto:abuse@basmevissen.nl>> wrote:
>>
>>     What are the criteria to call a distro supported?
>>
>> The short version is that it's a distro that doesn't change too much, is
>> still supported, and we have builders on autobuilder.yoctoproject.org
>> <http://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org> running that distro.
>>
>>
> OK, clear. However, the "still supported" part would exclude older Fedora
> releases, even while perfectly usable for Yocto.
>
> The Centos mismatch is annoying, can you please file a bug?
>>
>>
> Done: https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10577
>
> Of course this is just a notice and you're entirely welcome to ignore
>> it,
>>
>
> It is not really bothering me, but it might be for a novice user or
> someone wanting to run official, central builds on a Centos 7.x host.
>
> or even set SANITY_TESTED_DISTROS to "" if you're using poky.
>>
>>
> I added that in the bug report as a side note to add that as a comment to
> poky.conf.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> --
> Bas.
> --
> _______________________________________________
> yocto mailing list
> yocto@yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
>



-- 
*"Do or do not. There is no try"*
  *Yoda Master*

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3526 bytes --]

Re: Yocto 2.2 Morty supported Linux Distros

[Burton, Ross]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 620 bytes --]

On 1 November 2016 at 22:20, Daniel. <danielhilst@gmail.com> wrote:

> Just as a note, I've been using archlinux for about a year and have never
> faced "distro related problems", except when the gcc6 comes out. Anyway I'm
> using daisy in my work. I think that making old releases supported by X
> distro doesn't make any sense...
>

The supported list of distros is just the list of distros that are known to
work, and if something breaks then we'll notice and fix it.  If you want to
use arch and face the periodic problems such as new toolchain meaning you
can't build gcc-cross, then go for it.

Ross

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1034 bytes --]

Re: Yocto 2.2 Morty supported Linux Distros

[Khem Raj]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1418 bytes --]


> On Nov 1, 2016, at 4:22 PM, Burton, Ross <ross.burton@intel.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> On 1 November 2016 at 22:20, Daniel. <danielhilst@gmail.com <mailto:danielhilst@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Just as a note, I've been using archlinux for about a year and have never faced "distro related problems", except when the gcc6 comes out. Anyway I'm using daisy in my work. I think that making old releases supported by X distro doesn't make any sense...
> 
> The supported list of distros is just the list of distros that are known to work, and if something breaks then we'll notice and fix it.  If you want to use arch and face the periodic problems such as new toolchain meaning you can't build gcc-cross, then go for it.

Another option perhaps is to use a debian stable container with docker (https://hub.docker.com/r/cbrake/oe-build/ <https://hub.docker.com/r/cbrake/oe-build/>)
and you can use your favorite distro for stuff you usually do and at same time let OE/YP build on  a known/supported distro e.g.
Its a bit of mind shift but I am happily using it, while my distro stays bleeding edge arch.

e.g. see

http://bec-systems.com/site/1281/using-docker-for-oeyocto-builds <http://bec-systems.com/site/1281/using-docker-for-oeyocto-builds>
> 
> Ross
> --
> _______________________________________________
> yocto mailing list
> yocto@yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto


[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 2649 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 211 bytes --]

Re: Yocto 2.2 Morty supported Linux Distros

[Daniel.]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1907 bytes --]

2016-11-01 21:35 GMT-02:00 Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>:

>
> On Nov 1, 2016, at 4:22 PM, Burton, Ross <ross.burton@intel.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 1 November 2016 at 22:20, Daniel. <danielhilst@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Just as a note, I've been using archlinux for about a year and have never
>> faced "distro related problems", except when the gcc6 comes out. Anyway I'm
>> using daisy in my work. I think that making old releases supported by X
>> distro doesn't make any sense...
>>
>
> The supported list of distros is just the list of distros that are known
> to work, and if something breaks then we'll notice and fix it.  If you want
> to use arch and face the periodic problems such as new toolchain meaning
> you can't build gcc-cross, then go for it.
>
>
> Another option perhaps is to use a debian stable container with docker (
> https://hub.docker.com/r/cbrake/oe-build/)
> and you can use your favorite distro for stuff you usually do and at same
> time let OE/YP build on  a known/supported distro e.g.
> Its a bit of mind shift but I am happily using it, while my distro stays
> bleeding edge arch.
>
> e.g. see
>
> http://bec-systems.com/site/1281/using-docker-for-oeyocto-builds
>
>
> Ross
> --
> _______________________________________________
> yocto mailing list
> yocto@yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
>
>
>
I'm planning to move to ubuntu 16.04 as I have in home, since I'm something
like tired of reading the words "not supported" .. but I have a lot of work
to do before I can format my machine there... So, it will be arch :)

I was just notifying that I have never had problems with arch being "not
supported". The packages needed there, and the ones that can't be found at
binary repos can be found at AUR, so, arch works just fine.

Regards,

-- 
*"Do or do not. There is no try"*
  *Yoda Master*

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3644 bytes --]

Re: Yocto 2.2 Morty supported Linux Distros

[Burton, Ross]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 424 bytes --]

On 2 November 2016 at 14:21, Daniel. <danielhilst@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm planning to move to ubuntu 16.04 as I have in home, since I'm
> something like tired of reading the words "not supported" .. but I have a
> lot of work to do before I can format my machine there... So, it will be
> arch :)
>

Ubuntu 16.04 is supported, the documentation is wrong and will be fixed.
Arch is not, and never will be.

Ross

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 847 bytes --]

Re: Yocto 2.2 Morty supported Linux Distros

[Brian Avery]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2323 bytes --]

To add more options, there's also a set of CROPS (YP subproject)  Docker
containers aimed at supporting a general build environment for YP, one
aimed at the extensible sdk, and several for toaster depending on the
desired version.

poky/oe:
https://hub.docker.com/r/crops/poky/

extensible-sdk:
https://github.com/crops/extsdk-container

toaster:
https://hub.docker.com/r/crops/toaster/  (last official release)
https://hub.docker.com/r/crops/toaster-krogoth/
https://hub.docker.com/r/crops/toaster-morty/
https://hub.docker.com/r/crops/toaster-master/




There are instructions for using the CROPS containers on Mac & Windows as
well.
https://github.com/crops/docker-win-mac-docs/wiki

BR,
Brian
an intel employee





On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 4:35 PM, Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Nov 1, 2016, at 4:22 PM, Burton, Ross <ross.burton@intel.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 1 November 2016 at 22:20, Daniel. <danielhilst@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Just as a note, I've been using archlinux for about a year and have never
>> faced "distro related problems", except when the gcc6 comes out. Anyway I'm
>> using daisy in my work. I think that making old releases supported by X
>> distro doesn't make any sense...
>>
>
> The supported list of distros is just the list of distros that are known
> to work, and if something breaks then we'll notice and fix it.  If you want
> to use arch and face the periodic problems such as new toolchain meaning
> you can't build gcc-cross, then go for it.
>
>
> Another option perhaps is to use a debian stable container with docker (
> https://hub.docker.com/r/cbrake/oe-build/)
> and you can use your favorite distro for stuff you usually do and at same
> time let OE/YP build on  a known/supported distro e.g.
> Its a bit of mind shift but I am happily using it, while my distro stays
> bleeding edge arch.
>
> e.g. see
>
> http://bec-systems.com/site/1281/using-docker-for-oeyocto-builds
>
>
> Ross
> --
> _______________________________________________
> yocto mailing list
> yocto@yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
>
>
>
> --
> _______________________________________________
> yocto mailing list
> yocto@yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4619 bytes --]

Re: Yocto 2.2 Morty supported Linux Distros

[Joshua Lock]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1003 bytes --]

On Tue, 2016-11-01 at 17:11 +0000, Burton, Ross wrote:
> 
> > > On 1 November 2016 at 17:05, Bas Mevissen <abuse@basmevissen.nl>
wrote:
> > What are the criteria to call a distro supported?
> > 
> 
> > > The short version is that it's a distro that doesn't change too much,
is still supported, and we have builders on
autobuilder.yoctoproject.org running that distro.
> 
> The Centos mismatch is annoying, can you please file a bug?
> 

We previously had CentOS-7.* which was changed to CentOSLinux-7 in
meta-yocto ce1fe45e9a18a82e2b95ea7e0b088ba595ceeee6.

What's going on here? Are CentOS really changing the value of their
Distributor ID for a released version?
Or is the issue here that they aren't using consistent values for
Distributor ID and its equivalent across /etc/lsb-release, /etc/redhat-
release, /etc/os-release and other potential sources?

Can someone with a CentOS 7 box pastebin their /etc/lsb-release,
/etc/redhat-release and /etc/os-release?

Joshua
> 

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1567 bytes --]

Re: Yocto 2.2 Morty supported Linux Distros

[Bas Mevissen]

On 02/11/16 11:05, Joshua Lock wrote:

> Can someone with a CentOS 7 box pastebin their /etc/lsb-release,
> /etc/redhat-release and /etc/os-release?
>

/etc/lsb-release not available


At launch (1406):

/etc/redhat-release (link to /etc/centos-release):
CentOS Linux release 7.2.1406 (Core)

/etc/os-release:
NAME="CentOS Linux"
VERSION="7 (Core)"
ID="centos"
ID_LIKE="rhel fedora"
VERSION_ID="7"
PRETTY_NAME="CentOS Linux 7 (Core)"
ANSI_COLOR="0;31"
CPE_NAME="cpe:/o:centos:centos:7"
HOME_URL="https://www.centos.org/"
BUG_REPORT_URL="https://bugs.centos.org/"



Currently (1511):

/etc/redhat-release (link to /etc/centos-release):
CentOS Linux release 7.2.1511 (Core)

/etc/os-release:
NAME="CentOS Linux"
VERSION="7 (Core)"
ID="centos"
ID_LIKE="rhel fedora"
VERSION_ID="7"
PRETTY_NAME="CentOS Linux 7 (Core)"
ANSI_COLOR="0;31"
CPE_NAME="cpe:/o:centos:centos:7"
HOME_URL="https://www.centos.org/"
BUG_REPORT_URL="https://bugs.centos.org/"

CENTOS_MANTISBT_PROJECT="CentOS-7"
CENTOS_MANTISBT_PROJECT_VERSION="7"
REDHAT_SUPPORT_PRODUCT="centos"
REDHAT_SUPPORT_PRODUCT_VERSION="7"

So it seems to me that things have not changed in an unexpected way.

-- 
Bas.

Re: Yocto 2.2 Morty supported Linux Distros

[Joshua Lock]

On Wed, 2016-11-02 at 17:41 +0100, Bas Mevissen wrote:
> On 02/11/16 11:05, Joshua Lock wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Can someone with a CentOS 7 box pastebin their /etc/lsb-release,
> > /etc/redhat-release and /etc/os-release?
> > 
> 
> /etc/lsb-release not available
> 
> 
> At launch (1406):
> 
> /etc/redhat-release (link to /etc/centos-release):
> CentOS Linux release 7.2.1406 (Core)
> 
> /etc/os-release:
> NAME="CentOS Linux"
> VERSION="7 (Core)"
> ID="centos"
> ID_LIKE="rhel fedora"
> VERSION_ID="7"
> PRETTY_NAME="CentOS Linux 7 (Core)"
> ANSI_COLOR="0;31"
> CPE_NAME="cpe:/o:centos:centos:7"
> HOME_URL="https://www.centos.org/"
> BUG_REPORT_URL="https://bugs.centos.org/"
> 
> 
> 
> Currently (1511):
> 
> /etc/redhat-release (link to /etc/centos-release):
> CentOS Linux release 7.2.1511 (Core)
> 
> /etc/os-release:
> NAME="CentOS Linux"
> VERSION="7 (Core)"
> ID="centos"
> ID_LIKE="rhel fedora"
> VERSION_ID="7"
> PRETTY_NAME="CentOS Linux 7 (Core)"
> ANSI_COLOR="0;31"
> CPE_NAME="cpe:/o:centos:centos:7"
> HOME_URL="https://www.centos.org/"
> BUG_REPORT_URL="https://bugs.centos.org/"
> 
> CENTOS_MANTISBT_PROJECT="CentOS-7"
> CENTOS_MANTISBT_PROJECT_VERSION="7"
> REDHAT_SUPPORT_PRODUCT="centos"
> REDHAT_SUPPORT_PRODUCT_VERSION="7"
> 
> So it seems to me that things have not changed in an unexpected way.

Thank you! Any chance you can share the output of `lsb_release -ir`
also?

Regards,

Joshua

Re: Yocto 2.2 Morty supported Linux Distros

[Joshua Lock]

On Wed, 2016-11-02 at 21:31 +0000, Joshua Lock wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-11-02 at 17:41 +0100, Bas Mevissen wrote:
> > 
> > On 02/11/16 11:05, Joshua Lock wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Can someone with a CentOS 7 box pastebin their /etc/lsb-release,
> > > /etc/redhat-release and /etc/os-release?
> > > 
> > 
> > /etc/lsb-release not available
> > 
> > 
> > At launch (1406):
> > 
> > /etc/redhat-release (link to /etc/centos-release):
> > CentOS Linux release 7.2.1406 (Core)
> > 
> > /etc/os-release:
> > NAME="CentOS Linux"
> > VERSION="7 (Core)"
> > ID="centos"
> > ID_LIKE="rhel fedora"
> > VERSION_ID="7"
> > PRETTY_NAME="CentOS Linux 7 (Core)"
> > ANSI_COLOR="0;31"
> > CPE_NAME="cpe:/o:centos:centos:7"
> > HOME_URL="https://www.centos.org/"
> > BUG_REPORT_URL="https://bugs.centos.org/"
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Currently (1511):
> > 
> > /etc/redhat-release (link to /etc/centos-release):
> > CentOS Linux release 7.2.1511 (Core)
> > 
> > /etc/os-release:
> > NAME="CentOS Linux"
> > VERSION="7 (Core)"
> > ID="centos"
> > ID_LIKE="rhel fedora"
> > VERSION_ID="7"
> > PRETTY_NAME="CentOS Linux 7 (Core)"
> > ANSI_COLOR="0;31"
> > CPE_NAME="cpe:/o:centos:centos:7"
> > HOME_URL="https://www.centos.org/"
> > BUG_REPORT_URL="https://bugs.centos.org/"
> > 
> > CENTOS_MANTISBT_PROJECT="CentOS-7"
> > CENTOS_MANTISBT_PROJECT_VERSION="7"
> > REDHAT_SUPPORT_PRODUCT="centos"
> > REDHAT_SUPPORT_PRODUCT_VERSION="7"
> > 
> > So it seems to me that things have not changed in an unexpected
> > way.
> 
> Thank you! Any chance you can share the output of `lsb_release -ir`
> also?

Not to worry, I used a CentOS container to test this myself:

# lsb_release -ir
Distributor ID: CentOS
Release:        7.2.1511

The problem is that we check multiple sources for a distro's name,
favouring the output of lsb_release -ir.

If you have lsb_release available your system is reported as CentOS,
otherwise we fall back to reading os-release or redhat-release and get
CentOSLinux.

I've filed a bug to track this issue:

https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10591

Regards,

Joshua

Re: Yocto 2.2 Morty supported Linux Distros

[Bas Mevissen]

On 03/11/16 11:34, Joshua Lock wrote:
> Not to worry, I used a CentOS container to test this myself:
>
> # lsb_release -ir
> Distributor ID: CentOS
> Release:        7.2.1511
>

I got the same result.

> The problem is that we check multiple sources for a distro's name,
> favouring the output of lsb_release -ir.
>
> If you have lsb_release available your system is reported as CentOS,
> otherwise we fall back to reading os-release or redhat-release and get
> CentOSLinux.
>

It appears that I got lsb_release on my CentOS host by installing the 
Google Chrome RPM, which required lsb >= 4.0.

> I've filed a bug to track this issue:
>
> https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10591
>

Thanks, tracking it.

-- 
Bas.

Re: Yocto 2.2 Morty supported Linux Distros

[Trevor Woerner]

On 11/01/2016 11:27 AM, Burton, Ross wrote:
> Scott, can you update the list at 
> http://www.yoctoproject.org/docs/2.2/ref-manual/ref-manual.html#detailed-supported-distros 
> so that it reflects the list in the code:
>
> SANITY_TESTED_DISTROS ?= " \
>             poky-1.8 \n \
>             poky-2.0 \n \
>             poky-2.1 \n \
>             poky-2.2 \n \
>             Ubuntu-14.04 \n \
>             Ubuntu-14.10 \n \
>             Ubuntu-15.04 \n \
>             Ubuntu-15.10 \n \
>             Ubuntu-16.04 \n \
>             Fedora-22 \n \
>             Fedora-23 \n \
>             Fedora-24 \n \
>             CentOSLinux-7.* \n \
>             Debian-8.* \n \
>             openSUSE-13.2 \n \
>             SUSELINUX-42.1 \n \
>             "

The website also needs to list openSUSE 42.1 (Leap). Thanks!

Re: Yocto 2.2 Morty supported Linux Distros

[Burton, Ross]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 531 bytes --]

Hi Scott,

On 3 November 2016 at 20:21, Scott Rifenbark <srifenbark@gmail.com> wrote:

> See http://www.yoctoproject.org/docs/2.2/ref-manual/ref-
> manual.html#detailed-supported-distros and let me know if this is okay.
> If so, I will make sure the same commit is on my yocto-docs/morty branch.
> I updated master only for now
>


Both of the suse entries should be styled a "openSUSE <version>", the
change of case is due to technical nonsense and not what the user will see.

Apart from that, looks good.

Ross

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1214 bytes --]