* Supported host distro updates
@ 2012-09-24 11:10 Paul Eggleton
2012-09-24 11:15 ` Burton, Ross
` (3 more replies)
0 siblings, 4 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Paul Eggleton @ 2012-09-24 11:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: yocto
Hi all,
With the release coming up fairly soon, it's time to look at updating our
supported distro list. Currently we have the following (in meta-
yocto/conf/distro/poky.conf):
SANITY_TESTED_DISTROS ?= " \
Yocto (Built by Poky 7.0) 1.2 \n \
Ubuntu 10.04.4 LTS \n \
Ubuntu 11.10 \n \
Ubuntu 12.04 LTS \n \
Ubuntu 12.04.1 LTS \n \
Fedora release 15 (Lovelock) \n \
Fedora release 16 (Verne) \n \
Fedora release 17 (Beefy Miracle) \n \
CentOS release 5.6 (Final) \n \
CentOS release 5.7 (Final) \n \
CentOS release 6.2 (Final) \n \
Debian GNU/Linux 6.0.4 (squeeze) \n \
openSUSE 11.4 \n \
openSUSE 12.1 \n \
"
I think we should drop at least Fedora 15. What do we want to do with CentOS?
I've been using 6.3 here on my build machine for some time with no ill effects.
I believe we have some interest in preserving 5.x; should we be adding 6.3 and
removing 6.2? What about the rest?
Cheers,
Paul
--
Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread* Re: Supported host distro updates 2012-09-24 11:10 Supported host distro updates Paul Eggleton @ 2012-09-24 11:15 ` Burton, Ross 2012-09-24 16:29 ` Trevor Woerner ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Burton, Ross @ 2012-09-24 11:15 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Paul Eggleton; +Cc: yocto On 24 September 2012 12:10, Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> wrote: > Debian GNU/Linux 6.0.4 (squeeze) \n \ The latest stable is 6.0.5, so someone keep up to date with Debian Stable will get the warning (it's just a roll-up release of security and critical fixes). Ross ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: Supported host distro updates 2012-09-24 11:10 Supported host distro updates Paul Eggleton 2012-09-24 11:15 ` Burton, Ross @ 2012-09-24 16:29 ` Trevor Woerner 2012-09-24 16:33 ` Paul Eggleton 2012-09-24 17:01 ` Khem Raj 2012-09-24 16:52 ` Saul Wold 2012-09-24 19:03 ` McClintock Matthew-B29882 3 siblings, 2 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Trevor Woerner @ 2012-09-24 16:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Paul Eggleton; +Cc: yocto On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 7:10 AM, Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> wrote: > openSUSE 11.4 \n \ > openSUSE 12.1 \n \ openSUSE 12.2 was released on September 5th. I have been using it since around then and haven't found any issues. Is there some defacto test I can run to definitively say 12.2 works fine with Yocto? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: Supported host distro updates 2012-09-24 16:29 ` Trevor Woerner @ 2012-09-24 16:33 ` Paul Eggleton 2012-09-24 18:08 ` Trevor Woerner 2012-09-24 17:01 ` Khem Raj 1 sibling, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Paul Eggleton @ 2012-09-24 16:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Trevor Woerner; +Cc: yocto On Monday 24 September 2012 12:29:07 Trevor Woerner wrote: > On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 7:10 AM, Paul Eggleton > > <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > openSUSE 11.4 \n \ > > openSUSE 12.1 \n \ > > openSUSE 12.2 was released on September 5th. I have been using it > since around then and haven't found any issues. Is there some defacto > test I can run to definitively say 12.2 works fine with Yocto? IIRC, when we tested the 12.2 pre-release we found we were unable to support it due to the following bug: https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2201 If that is definitely fixed and builds run through OK, we should be able to add it to our host distro tests and declare it supported. Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: Supported host distro updates 2012-09-24 16:33 ` Paul Eggleton @ 2012-09-24 18:08 ` Trevor Woerner 0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Trevor Woerner @ 2012-09-24 18:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Paul Eggleton; +Cc: yocto On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> wrote: > IIRC, when we tested the 12.2 pre-release we found we were unable to support > it due to the following bug: > > https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2201 As you mentioned, this was on a pre-release milestone, 6 months before the final release. > If that is definitely fixed and builds run through OK, we should be able to add > it to our host distro tests and declare it supported. I just did a fresh test of the quick-start guide and saw a bunch of warnings, but the build itself completed successfully: Build Configuration: BB_VERSION = "1.15.3" TARGET_ARCH = "i586" TARGET_OS = "linux" MACHINE = "qemux86" DISTRO = "poky" DISTRO_VERSION = "1.2+snapshot-20120924" TUNE_FEATURES = "m32 i586" TARGET_FPU = "" meta meta-yocto meta-yocto-bsp = "master:88429f018bbb15749f31067d5e7bf33c21b15f92" NOTE: Resolving any missing task queue dependencies NOTE: Preparing runqueue NOTE: Executing SetScene Tasks NOTE: Executing RunQueue Tasks NOTE: validating kernel configuration find: warning: -path /home/trevor/devel/yocto/gitrepo-method/build/tmp/work/qemux86-poky-linux/linux-yocto-3.4.10+git1+c5bddf8ea379406ffec550528e17b777a0eba24b_1+59c3ff750831338d05ab67d5efd7fc101c451aff-r4.3/linux/ will not match anything because it ends with /. WARNING: QA Issue: udev: /lib/libgudev-1.0.so.0.0.1, installed in the base_prefix, requires a shared library under exec_prefix (/usr): libgobject-2.0.so.0 => /usr/lib/libgobject-2.0.so.0 (0xdead1000) WARNING: QA Issue: udev: /lib/libgudev-1.0.so.0.0.1, installed in the base_prefix, requires a shared library under exec_prefix (/usr): libgthread-2.0.so.0 => /usr/lib/libgthread-2.0.so.0 (0xdead2000) WARNING: QA Issue: udev: /lib/libgudev-1.0.so.0.0.1, installed in the base_prefix, requires a shared library under exec_prefix (/usr): libffi.so.6 => /usr/lib/libffi.so.6 (0xdead3000) WARNING: QA Issue: udev: /lib/libgudev-1.0.so.0.0.1, installed in the base_prefix, requires a shared library under exec_prefix (/usr): libglib-2.0.so.0 => /usr/lib/libglib-2.0.so.0 (0xdead4000) WARNING: QA Issue: udev: /lib/udev/udev-acl, installed in the base_prefix, requires a shared library under exec_prefix (/usr): libglib-2.0.so.0 => /usr/lib/libglib-2.0.so.0 (0xdead2000) NOTE: Tasks Summary: Attempted 1537 tasks of which 1224 didn't need to be rerun and all succeeded. Summary: There were 6 WARNING messages shown. So unless those warnings are host-related I think it's safe to say openSUSE 12.2 has a base level of support. Is there any definitive test that anyone can suggest? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: Supported host distro updates 2012-09-24 16:29 ` Trevor Woerner 2012-09-24 16:33 ` Paul Eggleton @ 2012-09-24 17:01 ` Khem Raj 1 sibling, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Khem Raj @ 2012-09-24 17:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Trevor Woerner; +Cc: Paul Eggleton, yocto On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Trevor Woerner <twoerner@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 7:10 AM, Paul Eggleton > <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> wrote: >> openSUSE 11.4 \n \ >> openSUSE 12.1 \n \ > > openSUSE 12.2 was released on September 5th. I have been using it > since around then and haven't found any issues. Is there some defacto > test I can run to definitively say 12.2 works fine with Yocto? > _______________________________________________ > yocto mailing list > yocto@yoctoproject.org > https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto FWIW I have been build testing on (to be) Ubuntu 12.10/32bit without any issues. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: Supported host distro updates 2012-09-24 11:10 Supported host distro updates Paul Eggleton 2012-09-24 11:15 ` Burton, Ross 2012-09-24 16:29 ` Trevor Woerner @ 2012-09-24 16:52 ` Saul Wold 2012-09-24 19:03 ` McClintock Matthew-B29882 3 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: Saul Wold @ 2012-09-24 16:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Paul Eggleton; +Cc: yocto On 09/24/2012 04:10 AM, Paul Eggleton wrote: > Hi all, > > With the release coming up fairly soon, it's time to look at updating our > supported distro list. Currently we have the following (in meta- > yocto/conf/distro/poky.conf): > > SANITY_TESTED_DISTROS ?= " \ > Yocto (Built by Poky 7.0) 1.2 \n \ Will want to ensure this is updated to the correct Yocto version also, maybe both N and N-1. Sau! > Ubuntu 10.04.4 LTS \n \ > Ubuntu 11.10 \n \ > Ubuntu 12.04 LTS \n \ > Ubuntu 12.04.1 LTS \n \ > Fedora release 15 (Lovelock) \n \ > Fedora release 16 (Verne) \n \ > Fedora release 17 (Beefy Miracle) \n \ > CentOS release 5.6 (Final) \n \ > CentOS release 5.7 (Final) \n \ > CentOS release 6.2 (Final) \n \ > Debian GNU/Linux 6.0.4 (squeeze) \n \ > openSUSE 11.4 \n \ > openSUSE 12.1 \n \ > " > > I think we should drop at least Fedora 15. What do we want to do with CentOS? > I've been using 6.3 here on my build machine for some time with no ill effects. > I believe we have some interest in preserving 5.x; should we be adding 6.3 and > removing 6.2? What about the rest? > > Cheers, > Paul > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: Supported host distro updates 2012-09-24 11:10 Supported host distro updates Paul Eggleton ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2012-09-24 16:52 ` Saul Wold @ 2012-09-24 19:03 ` McClintock Matthew-B29882 2012-10-01 8:00 ` Paul Eggleton 3 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: McClintock Matthew-B29882 @ 2012-09-24 19:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Paul Eggleton; +Cc: yocto@yoctoproject.org On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 6:10 AM, Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> wrote: > CentOS release 5.6 (Final) \n \ > CentOS release 5.7 (Final) \n \ I do testing on CentOS release 5.8 (Final) and Fedora release 13 (Goddard) I'm even fixing issues with libx11 now on CentOS 5.x -M ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: Supported host distro updates 2012-09-24 19:03 ` McClintock Matthew-B29882 @ 2012-10-01 8:00 ` Paul Eggleton 2012-10-01 14:21 ` McClintock Matthew-B29882 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Paul Eggleton @ 2012-10-01 8:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: McClintock Matthew-B29882; +Cc: yocto On Monday 24 September 2012 19:03:57 McClintock Matthew-B29882 wrote: > CentOS release 5.8 (Final) OK, so do we keep 5.6 / 5.7 or remove them in favour of 5.8? > Fedora release 13 (Goddard) I think this is probably too old for us to be declaring support for, since it has been unsupported upstream for some time now. Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: Supported host distro updates 2012-10-01 8:00 ` Paul Eggleton @ 2012-10-01 14:21 ` McClintock Matthew-B29882 2012-10-01 14:36 ` Paul Eggleton 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: McClintock Matthew-B29882 @ 2012-10-01 14:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Paul Eggleton; +Cc: McClintock Matthew-B29882, yocto@yoctoproject.org On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 3:00 AM, Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> wrote: > On Monday 24 September 2012 19:03:57 McClintock Matthew-B29882 wrote: >> CentOS release 5.8 (Final) > > OK, so do we keep 5.6 / 5.7 or remove them in favour of 5.8? I don't think you can... each of these present different issues I've found and fixed along the way. >> Fedora release 13 (Goddard) > > I think this is probably too old for us to be declaring support for, since it > has been unsupported upstream for some time now. This has been working for me for a while (with a lot fewer issues to fix than CentOS 5.x) unless I'm missing something, I don't think it's too old. -M ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: Supported host distro updates 2012-10-01 14:21 ` McClintock Matthew-B29882 @ 2012-10-01 14:36 ` Paul Eggleton 2012-10-01 14:41 ` McClintock Matthew-B29882 0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread From: Paul Eggleton @ 2012-10-01 14:36 UTC (permalink / raw) To: McClintock Matthew-B29882; +Cc: yocto@yoctoproject.org On Monday 01 October 2012 14:21:47 McClintock Matthew-B29882 wrote: > On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 3:00 AM, Paul Eggleton > > <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > On Monday 24 September 2012 19:03:57 McClintock Matthew-B29882 wrote: > >> CentOS release 5.8 (Final) > > > > OK, so do we keep 5.6 / 5.7 or remove them in favour of 5.8? > > I don't think you can... each of these present different issues I've > found and fixed along the way. OK, I'll leave them in for the moment. > >> Fedora release 13 (Goddard) > > > > I think this is probably too old for us to be declaring support for, since > > it has been unsupported upstream for some time now. > > This has been working for me for a while (with a lot fewer issues to > fix than CentOS 5.x) unless I'm missing something, I don't think it's > too old. I consider it too old because of its upstream support status, but also because broadly we commit to supporting N and N-1 (and usually N+1) where N is the most recent release of the distribution. Fedora 13 would be N-4. Not having Fedora 13 (or any other distro or distro version, for that matter) in this list does not mean that you can't continue to use it, nor does it necessarily mean that we won't take patches to fix support for it should it break. Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: Supported host distro updates 2012-10-01 14:36 ` Paul Eggleton @ 2012-10-01 14:41 ` McClintock Matthew-B29882 0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread From: McClintock Matthew-B29882 @ 2012-10-01 14:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Paul Eggleton; +Cc: McClintock Matthew-B29882, yocto@yoctoproject.org On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> wrote: > On Monday 01 October 2012 14:21:47 McClintock Matthew-B29882 wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 3:00 AM, Paul Eggleton >> >> <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> wrote: >> > On Monday 24 September 2012 19:03:57 McClintock Matthew-B29882 wrote: >> >> CentOS release 5.8 (Final) >> > >> > OK, so do we keep 5.6 / 5.7 or remove them in favour of 5.8? >> >> I don't think you can... each of these present different issues I've >> found and fixed along the way. > > OK, I'll leave them in for the moment. > >> >> Fedora release 13 (Goddard) >> > >> > I think this is probably too old for us to be declaring support for, since >> > it has been unsupported upstream for some time now. >> >> This has been working for me for a while (with a lot fewer issues to >> fix than CentOS 5.x) unless I'm missing something, I don't think it's >> too old. > > I consider it too old because of its upstream support status, but also because > broadly we commit to supporting N and N-1 (and usually N+1) where N is the > most recent release of the distribution. Fedora 13 would be N-4. > > Not having Fedora 13 (or any other distro or distro version, for that matter) > in this list does not mean that you can't continue to use it, nor does it > necessarily mean that we won't take patches to fix support for it should it > break. Perhaps a better solution here is to have two lists. An officially tested and supported along with a known not to work list. -M ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2012-10-01 14:41 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 12+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2012-09-24 11:10 Supported host distro updates Paul Eggleton 2012-09-24 11:15 ` Burton, Ross 2012-09-24 16:29 ` Trevor Woerner 2012-09-24 16:33 ` Paul Eggleton 2012-09-24 18:08 ` Trevor Woerner 2012-09-24 17:01 ` Khem Raj 2012-09-24 16:52 ` Saul Wold 2012-09-24 19:03 ` McClintock Matthew-B29882 2012-10-01 8:00 ` Paul Eggleton 2012-10-01 14:21 ` McClintock Matthew-B29882 2012-10-01 14:36 ` Paul Eggleton 2012-10-01 14:41 ` McClintock Matthew-B29882
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.