Re: Bitbake failure:

[Joshua Watt <jpewhacker@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1264 bytes --]

On Tue, 2018-03-27 at 09:19 +0000, pawanKumar wrote:
> Thanks for your tip.Can I use capital c in place of small c.

Not quite sure what you mean. If you are trying to do:
 bitbake -C fetchall core-image-sato
that doesn't work anymore AFAIK. I don't think there is currently a way
to do a "force invalidate" (e.g. -f) with --runall, although TBH I'm
not sure if 'bitbake -C fetchall' did that anyway. Perhaps someone more
familiar with the recursive dependencies can chime in. 
However, I recently ran into a case where having -f apply to --runall
was useful, so I have a patch in my contrib tree to add support for it.
If that's what you're trying to do, I'm curious what the use case is? I
haven't pushed the patch to the mailing list because I'm not sure if my
use is actually valid.
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2018, 9:20 PM Joshua Watt <jpewhacker@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2018-03-23 at 07:31 +0000, pawanKumar wrote:
> > > Hi team,When I tried to run (bitbate -c fetchall) it is giving
> > > error as
> > > "target do_fetchall is not found for image core-image-sato". 
> > > How to over come this error.
> > 
> > I believe fetchall was superseded by --runall. Try:
> > bitbake --runall fetch core-image-sato
> > > Regards
> > > Pavan.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2324 bytes --]