New OE user question

New OE user question

[E Robertson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2975 bytes --]

Hi All,

I'm brand new to OE and I've been following the documentation steps along the 
way. I notice the documentation is either missing sections or not clear and 
as I learn how to use this tool, I would like to update the documentation 
sections. It's probably the least I could do as I figure out how this works. 
I'm referirng to the user manual wiki. Both configuring and building sections 
are missing clarity.
Who is responsible for the manual and how do I submit info to the sections?

I got the tools built and running bitbake 1.8.10 and pulled 
org.openembedded.dev branch. I tried to build both nano and helloworld and 
couldn't get pass the following error. I have chosen the generic-uclibc 
DISTRO for starters.

bitbake helloworld

NOTE: Psyco JIT Compiler (http://psyco.sf.net) not available. Install it to 
increase performance.
NOTE: Handling BitBake files: \ (5334/5334) [100 %]
NOTE: Parsing finished. 5070 cached, 0 parsed, 264 skipped, 0 masked.
NOTE: build 200803310852: started

OE Build Configuration:
BB_VERSION     = "1.8.10"
OE_REVISION    = "53456ed8edb2c9fe305ce7764182d17d7c84e129"
TARGET_ARCH    = "arm"
TARGET_OS      = "linux-uclibc"
MACHINE        = "at91sam9263ek"
DISTRO         = "generic-uclibc"
DISTRO_VERSION = ".dev-snapshot-20080331"
TARGET_FPU     = "soft"

NOTE: Resolving any missing task queue dependencies
NOTE: Preparing runqueue
NOTE: Executing runqueue
NOTE: Running task 127 of 178 (ID: 
58, /OpenEmbedded_Stuff/org.openembedded.dev/packages/uclibc/uclibc_0.9.28.bb, 
do_compile)
NOTE: package uclibc-0.9.28: started
NOTE: package uclibc-0.9.28-r11: task do_compile: started
ERROR: function do_compile failed
ERROR: log data follows 
(/OpenEmbedded_Stuff/oetmp/work/armv5te-linux-uclibc/uclibc-0.9.28-r11/temp/log.do_compile.3578)
| NOTE: make STRIPTOOL=true LD=arm-linux-uclibc-ld 
LOCALE_DATA_FILENAME=uClibc-locale-030818.arm.tgz CC=ccache 
arm-linux-uclibc-gcc -march=armv5te -mtune=arm926ej-s
| 
+ ./extra/scripts/fix_includes.sh -k /OpenEmbedded_Stuff/oetmp/staging/arm-linux-uclibc//usr -t 
arm
| Unable to determine version for kernel headers
|       provided in 
directory /OpenEmbedded_Stuff/oetmp/staging/arm-linux-uclibc//usr
| make: *** [headers] Error 1
| FATAL: oe_runmake failed
NOTE: Task 
failed: /OpenEmbedded_Stuff/oetmp/work/armv5te-linux-uclibc/uclibc-0.9.28-r11/temp/log.do_compile.3578
NOTE: package uclibc-0.9.28-r11: task do_compile: failed
ERROR: TaskFailed event exception, aborting
NOTE: package uclibc-0.9.28: failed
ERROR: Build 
of /OpenEmbedded_Stuff/org.openembedded.dev/packages/uclibc/uclibc_0.9.28.bb 
do_compile failed
ERROR: Task 58 
(/OpenEmbedded_Stuff/org.openembedded.dev/packages/uclibc/uclibc_0.9.28.bb, 
do_compile) failed
NOTE: Tasks Summary: Attempted 126 tasks of which 126 didn't need to be rerun 
and 1 failed.
ERROR: '/OpenEmbedded_Stuff/org.openembedded.dev/packages/uclibc/uclibc_0.9.28.bb' 
failed

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 196 bytes --]

Re: New OE user question

[Cliff Brake]

On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 10:07 AM, E Robertson <e.robertson.svg@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
>  I'm brand new to OE and I've been following the documentation steps along the
>  way. I notice the documentation is either missing sections or not clear and
>  as I learn how to use this tool, I would like to update the documentation
>  sections. It's probably the least I could do as I figure out how this works.
>  I'm referirng to the user manual wiki. Both configuring and building sections
>  are missing clarity.
>  Who is responsible for the manual and how do I submit info to the sections?

The "User Manual" is maintained in the monotone repo, and can be
checked out and edited.

http://amethyst.openembedded.net/oe/viewmtn/viewmtn.py/branch/changes/org.openembedded.documentation

Patches welcome.

The rest of the documentation is in a Drupal wiki, and can be edited.
You may need a user account.

>  I got the tools built and running bitbake 1.8.10 and pulled
>  org.openembedded.dev branch. I tried to build both nano and helloworld and
>  couldn't get pass the following error. I have chosen the generic-uclibc
>  DISTRO for starters.

Try the angstrom distro first, as I don't think generic is currently
maintained.  Sigh -- the OeFaq page has been spammed :-(

This older page will tell you how to set Angstrom to uclibc until I
figure out how to restore the correct page.
http://www.openembedded.org/node/28/diff/964/1042

Cliff


-- 
=======================
Cliff Brake
http://bec-systems.com

Re: New OE user question

[Leon Woestenberg]

On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 4:07 PM, E Robertson <e.robertson.svg@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
>  I'm brand new to OE and I've been following the documentation steps along the
>  way. I notice the documentation is either missing sections or not clear and

Good catch, our default example seems to be unmaintained.  Probably
the "generic" distribution lacks good maintenance, at least for this
configuration.

DISTRO         = "generic-uclibc"

The error which stops your build is:

>  | Unable to determine version for kernel headers
>  |       provided in

Can someone suggest a saner distribution for this Samsung chip? angstrom maybe?

Regards,
-- 
Leon

Re: New OE user question

[Geoffrey Wossum]

On Monday 31 March 2008 09:07:48 am E Robertson wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I'm brand new to OE and I've been following the documentation steps along
> the way. I notice the documentation is either missing sections or not clear
> and as I learn how to use this tool, I would like to update the
> documentation sections. It's probably the least I could do as I figure out
> how this works. I'm referirng to the user manual wiki. Both configuring and
> building sections are missing clarity.
> Who is responsible for the manual and how do I submit info to the sections?

May not help you with your current issue, but I've discovered that the Poky 
handbook is a better source of OpenEmbedded info than the OpenEmbedded 
documetation.  

http://www.pokylinux.org/doc/poky-handbook.html

---
Geoffrey

Re: New OE user question

[Koen Kooi]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Leon Woestenberg schreef:
| On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 4:07 PM, E Robertson
<e.robertson.svg@gmail.com> wrote:
|> Hi All,
|>
|>  I'm brand new to OE and I've been following the documentation steps
along the
|>  way. I notice the documentation is either missing sections or not
clear and
|
| Good catch, our default example seems to be unmaintained.  Probably
| the "generic" distribution lacks good maintenance, at least for this
| configuration.
|
| DISTRO         = "generic-uclibc"
|
| The error which stops your build is:
|
|>  | Unable to determine version for kernel headers
|>  |       provided in
|
| Can someone suggest a saner distribution for this Samsung chip?
angstrom maybe?

It's an atmel chip, and atmel itself recommends angstrom:
http://www.linux4sam.org/twiki/bin/view/Linux4SAM/OpenEmbeddedAngstrom

regards,

Koen


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFH8Q1TMkyGM64RGpERAtBvAJ0X+wxP9orzhur/qpq0eYVM0RhZOQCcDAqq
pyFWBMzD3HqLnXzt3/ZU17A=
=QAC4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: New OE user question

[E Robertson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1380 bytes --]

> The "User Manual" is maintained in the monotone repo, and can be
> checked out and edited.
>
> http://amethyst.openembedded.net/oe/viewmtn/viewmtn.py/branch/changes/org.o
>penembedded.documentation
>
> Patches welcome.

I'm not sure how your patch system works. I could checkout the documentation 
branch and edit it but should I do a diff and submit it? Or would it be best 
to edit the wiki?

> The rest of the documentation is in a Drupal wiki, and can be edited.
> You may need a user account.
>
> >  I got the tools built and running bitbake 1.8.10 and pulled
> >  org.openembedded.dev branch. I tried to build both nano and helloworld
> > and couldn't get pass the following error. I have chosen the
> > generic-uclibc DISTRO for starters.
>
> Try the angstrom distro first, as I don't think generic is currently
> maintained.  Sigh -- the OeFaq page has been spammed :-(

Would it be better to stick to one distro for the documentation? I think that 
would be best. Having said that, would Angstrom be the best place to start? 
I was looking for a simple distro to start with and I thought Angstrom might 
be a bit bulky. I'll use which ever the suggested one it. 

> This older page will tell you how to set Angstrom to uclibc until I
> figure out how to restore the correct page.
> http://www.openembedded.org/node/28/diff/964/1042




[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 196 bytes --]

Re: New OE user question

[E Robertson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1187 bytes --]

On Monday 31 March 2008 11:12:03 am Koen Kooi wrote:
> Leon Woestenberg schreef:
> | On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 4:07 PM, E Robertson
>
> <e.robertson.svg@gmail.com> wrote:
> |> Hi All,
> |>
> |>  I'm brand new to OE and I've been following the documentation steps
>
> along the
>
> |>  way. I notice the documentation is either missing sections or not
>
> clear and
>
> | Good catch, our default example seems to be unmaintained.  Probably
> | the "generic" distribution lacks good maintenance, at least for this
> | configuration.
> |
> | DISTRO         = "generic-uclibc"
> |
> | The error which stops your build is:
> |>  | Unable to determine version for kernel headers
> |>  |       provided in
> |
> | Can someone suggest a saner distribution for this Samsung chip?
>
> angstrom maybe?
>
> It's an atmel chip, and atmel itself recommends angstrom:

Yes, I'm using an atmel chip but not necessarily going with atmel 
recommendations. Eventually I would build a custom distro (on a custom board) 
unless Angstrom is the best way to go. Seeing that I'm new, I don't know 
anything about Angstrom so my decision point is a aways off.

regards,
Ezban

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 196 bytes --]

Re: New OE user question

[Geoffrey Wossum]

On Monday 31 March 2008 11:12:03 am Koen Kooi wrote:
> Leon Woestenberg schreef:
> | On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 4:07 PM, E Robertson

> | Can someone suggest a saner distribution for this Samsung chip?
>
> angstrom maybe?
>
> It's an atmel chip, and atmel itself recommends angstrom:
> http://www.linux4sam.org/twiki/bin/view/Linux4SAM/OpenEmbeddedAngstrom

That page looks pretty neutral on Angstrom to me.  Maybe it's been updated 
since you read it last?

Atmel does seems to like to use buildroot internally, but I've never seen them 
recommend against OE / Angstrom.  Interesting side note, it seems they 
recently had to rollback some of their AVR32 gcc patches in the buildroot 
mainline because they were breaking stuff there.

---
Geoffrey

Re: New OE user question

[E Robertson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 524 bytes --]


> http://amethyst.openembedded.net/oe/viewmtn/viewmtn.py/branch/changes/org.o
>penembedded.documentation
>
> Patches welcome.
>
> The rest of the documentation is in a Drupal wiki, and can be edited.
> You may need a user account.
>

I've checked out the documentation branch but find myself looking at xml 
files. Is their an editor I can use to edit the files so I wouldn't have to 
worry about xml syntax?
Their are 9 chapters on the OE website but only 8 in the branch, dit I pull 
the correct branch?


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 196 bytes --]

Re: New OE user question

[Cliff Brake]

On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 12:19 PM, E Robertson <e.robertson.svg@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The "User Manual" is maintained in the monotone repo, and can be
>  > checked out and edited.
>  >
>  > http://amethyst.openembedded.net/oe/viewmtn/viewmtn.py/branch/changes/org.o
>  >penembedded.documentation
>  >
>  > Patches welcome.
>
>  I'm not sure how your patch system works. I could checkout the documentation
>  branch and edit it but should I do a diff and submit it? Or would it be best
>  to edit the wiki?

Depends on the source of the documentation.  There is no way to edit
the user manual through the wiki -- they are two different types of
documentation.

To edit the user manual, yes, create a diff and post to the OE
bugzilla or dev maillist.

>  Would it be better to stick to one distro for the documentation? I think that
>  would be best. Having said that, would Angstrom be the best place to start?
>  I was looking for a simple distro to start with and I thought Angstrom might
>  be a bit bulky. I'll use which ever the suggested one it.

Probably so, especially as very few people use generic.  The
perception that Angstrom is bulky is not correct as you can build a
number of different images, that vary in size.  The distro does not
dictate the image size -- the image recipe does that.  The main
benefit of using Angstrom is that it chooses version of packages that
are known to work together.

You may also want to consider the "stable" OE branch for getting started.

Cliff

-- 
=======================
Cliff Brake
http://bec-systems.com

Re: New OE user question

[Cliff Brake]

On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 1:09 PM, E Robertson <e.robertson.svg@gmail.com> wrote:
>  I've checked out the documentation branch but find myself looking at xml
>  files. Is their an editor I can use to edit the files so I wouldn't have to
>  worry about xml syntax?
>  Their are 9 chapters on the OE website but only 8 in the branch, dit I pull
>  the correct branch?

The format is docbook -- I suspect most people just edit the raw XML.

The 9th chapter seems to be in the reference directory.

Cliff


-- 
=======================
Cliff Brake
http://bec-systems.com

Re: New OE user question

[Leon Woestenberg]

Hello,

On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 6:34 PM, Geoffrey Wossum <geoffrey@pager.net> wrote:
> On Monday 31 March 2008 11:12:03 am Koen Kooi wrote:
>
> > Leon Woestenberg schreef:
> > | Can someone suggest a saner distribution for this Samsung chip?
>  > It's an atmel chip, and atmel itself recommends angstrom:
>  > http://www.linux4sam.org/twiki/bin/view/Linux4SAM/OpenEmbeddedAngstrom
>
Whoops on the chip, and yes they do recommend Angstrom when choosing
OpenEmbedded.

Now it seems so far Atmel seems to use buildroot a lot as well.

>  recommend against OE / Angstrom.  Interesting side note, it seems they
>  recently had to rollback some of their AVR32 gcc patches in the buildroot
>  mainline because they were breaking stuff there.
>
I saw that. I wonder if "there" means uclibc (in case we are affected
as well), or buildroot specifics (where they break other archs)?

Regards,
-- 
Leon

Re: New OE user question

[Ulf Samuelsson]

> Hello,
> 
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 6:34 PM, Geoffrey Wossum <geoffrey@pager.net> wrote:
>> On Monday 31 March 2008 11:12:03 am Koen Kooi wrote:
>>
>> > Leon Woestenberg schreef:
>> > | Can someone suggest a saner distribution for this Samsung chip?
>>  > It's an atmel chip, and atmel itself recommends angstrom:
>>  > http://www.linux4sam.org/twiki/bin/view/Linux4SAM/OpenEmbeddedAngstrom
>>
> Whoops on the chip, and yes they do recommend Angstrom when choosing
> OpenEmbedded.
> 
> Now it seems so far Atmel seems to use buildroot a lot as well.
> 
>>  recommend against OE / Angstrom.  Interesting side note, it seems they
>>  recently had to rollback some of their AVR32 gcc patches in the buildroot
>>  mainline because they were breaking stuff there.
>>

There was some minor conflict with the x86, which could probably
be resolved quite easily, but that is not the reason for removing the 
AVR32 patched.

The main problem for the last month is that AVR32 patches are duplicated.
The toolchain patches area about 6-7 MB and it does not make
sense to add bloat for all the buildroot users.

I extended buildroot last year to allow building the AVR32 toolchain using
prepatched sources downloaded separately for the AVR32.
The AVR32 patches recently added, duplicated the prepatched
toolchain, and it is simply not worth it, so I reverted it back to
only support the prepatched toolchain.

The AVR32 linux patches were also duplicated in each board directory, 
and that has also been fixed


> I saw that. I wonder if "there" means uclibc (in case we are affected
> as well), or buildroot specifics (where they break other archs)?


Best Regards
Ulf Samuelsson

OE Manual: License change? (was: Re: New OE user question)

[Marcin Juszkiewicz]

Dnia Monday 31 of March 2008, Geoffrey Wossum napisał:
> On Monday 31 March 2008 09:07:48 am E Robertson wrote:

> > I'm brand new to OE and I've been following the documentation steps
> > along the way. I notice the documentation is either missing sections
> > or not clear and as I learn how to use this tool, I would like to
> > update the documentation sections. It's probably the least I could do
> > as I figure out how this works. I'm referirng to the user manual
> > wiki. Both configuring and building sections are missing clarity.
> > Who is responsible for the manual and how do I submit info to the
> > sections?
>
> May not help you with your current issue, but I've discovered that the
> Poky handbook is a better source of OpenEmbedded info than the
> OpenEmbedded documetation.
>
> http://www.pokylinux.org/doc/poky-handbook.html

That reminds me one thing. 

OpenEmbedded documentation use "Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0", 
Poky Handbook use "Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share 
Alike 2.0" license. Copying from Poky Handbook to OpenEmbedded manual 
require change on OE doc license to CC-NC-SA.

I vote for changing OE manual license to CC-NC-SA as there is lot of good 
stuff in Poky handbook which would be nice to have also in OE manual.

-- 
JID: hrw-jabber.org
OpenEmbedded developer/consultant

          UseNet News. Learn what you know. Share what you don't.

Re: OE Manual: License change?

[Jeremy Lainé]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


> OpenEmbedded documentation use "Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0",
> Poky Handbook use "Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share
> Alike 2.0" license. Copying from Poky Handbook to OpenEmbedded manual
> require change on OE doc license to CC-NC-SA.
>
> I vote for changing OE manual license to CC-NC-SA as there is lot of good
> stuff in Poky handbook which would be nice to have also in OE manual.
Sorry to nitpick but I'd vote against changing to CC-NC-SA, the
"Non-Commercial" limitation makes in non-free in the "Debian Free
Software Guidelines" sense. Unless I am mistaken it means that if you
build a commercial product based on OpenEmbedded it prevents you from
distributing the documentation along with a snapshot of OE (say you
want to provide an SDK to your users).

- --
Jeremy LAINE
Bolloré telecom | 11bis, rue Scribe | F-75009 Paris
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFH8hW/CL1n3lVB9EYRAqa1AJ0YbeE/gB7Ze3agEHfhvETDf6ylfgCeOVFC
8vflNs2oFirHTLMcJDZR5mY=
=+k6w
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: OE Manual: License change?

[Leon Woestenberg]

Hello,

2008/4/1 Jeremy Lainé <jeremy.laine@bolloretelecom.eu>:
>  Sorry to nitpick but I'd vote against changing to CC-NC-SA, the
>  "Non-Commercial" limitation makes in non-free in the "Debian Free
>  Software Guidelines" sense. Unless I am mistaken it means that if you
>  build a commercial product based on OpenEmbedded it prevents you from
>  distributing the documentation along with a snapshot of OE (say you
>  want to provide an SDK to your users).
>
Good point, at least something to find out before we make a change.


(Worst case, the Poky documentation itself *might* then be even under
a chicken and egg situation :-)

Regards,
-- 
Leon

Re: OE Manual: License change?

[Marcin Juszkiewicz]

Dnia Tuesday 01 of April 2008, Leon Woestenberg napisał:
> Hello,
>
> 2008/4/1 Jeremy Lainé <jeremy.laine@bolloretelecom.eu>:
> >  Sorry to nitpick but I'd vote against changing to CC-NC-SA, the
> >  "Non-Commercial" limitation makes in non-free in the "Debian Free
> >  Software Guidelines" sense. Unless I am mistaken it means that if
> > you build a commercial product based on OpenEmbedded it prevents you
> > from distributing the documentation along with a snapshot of OE (say
> > you want to provide an SDK to your users).
>
> Good point, at least something to find out before we make a change.
>
> (Worst case, the Poky documentation itself *might* then be even under
> a chicken and egg situation :-)

What do you mean by 'a chicken and egg situation'?

-- 
JID: hrw-jabber.org
OpenEmbedded developer/consultant

       Wszystko, co naprawdę lubię robić, jest albo niemoralne, 
       albo nielegalne, albo tuczące.      [Alexander Woolcott]

Re: OE Manual: License change?

[Robert Schuster]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 819 bytes --]

Hi.

Marcin Juszkiewicz schrieb:
> Dnia Monday 31 of March 2008, Geoffrey Wossum napisał:
> That reminds me one thing. 
> 
> OpenEmbedded documentation use "Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0", 
> Poky Handbook use "Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share 
> Alike 2.0" license. Copying from Poky Handbook to OpenEmbedded manual 
> require change on OE doc license to CC-NC-SA.
> 
> I vote for changing OE manual license to CC-NC-SA as there is lot of good 
> stuff in Poky handbook which would be nice to have also in OE manual.
OMG not any of these broken *-NC licenses. ;)

A manual is a functional work and therefore should IMHO not restrict the
uses.

Any chance of changing poky manual's license to something less
restrictive? CC-BY-SA/CC-BY preferably?

Regards
Robert



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 260 bytes --]

Re: OE Manual: License change?

[Richard Purdie]

On Tue, 2008-04-01 at 17:54 +0200, Robert Schuster wrote:
> Marcin Juszkiewicz schrieb:
> > OpenEmbedded documentation use "Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0", 
> > Poky Handbook use "Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share 
> > Alike 2.0" license. Copying from Poky Handbook to OpenEmbedded manual 
> > require change on OE doc license to CC-NC-SA.
> > 
> > I vote for changing OE manual license to CC-NC-SA as there is lot of good 
> > stuff in Poky handbook which would be nice to have also in OE manual.
> OMG not any of these broken *-NC licenses. ;)

Why 'broken'? What does it stop you doing which you want to do?

> A manual is a functional work and therefore should IMHO not restrict the
> uses.
> 
> Any chance of changing poky manual's license to something less
> restrictive? CC-BY-SA/CC-BY preferably?

Not really. We went around in circles with the manual licence and on the
one hand we want it open, we want people to be able to make changes and
we want it to be useful for everyone. How you protect work invested in
something like Poky is very tricky however, particularly when we're keen
on giving back to the community. At the end of the day, Poky is
commercial to some degree and what we don't want is someone to rebadge
Poky and its manual and then make money on the result and this approach
gives us some protection.

I'm relatively happy with the outcome and whilst its a shame the
licenses aren't compatible, I don't think this will be too much of an
issue. People are free to submit to one, the other or both and may the
best manual win :) Don't underestimate the amount of work involved in
writing these things...

For the record I personally don't think -NC is appropriate for OE's
manual.

Cheers,

Richard