Re: Where is atom-pc.conf hiding?

[Tom Rini <tom_rini@mentor.com>]

On 06/13/2011 03:35 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 15:10 -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
>> On 06/13/2011 02:30 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 22:36 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote:
>>>> Op 13 jun 2011, om 22:28 heeft Saul Wold het volgende geschreven:
>>>>
>>>>> On 06/13/2011 11:31 AM, Koen Kooi wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Khem was asking if I could reproduce the recent x86 breakage he was seeing[1] and I ran into another bug:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> koen@dominion:/OE/tentacle/sources/meta-intel$ git blame meta-n450/conf/machine/n450.conf  | grep atom
>>>>>> 158f88d7 (Saul Wold   2011-01-03 15:33:52 -0800  6) require conf/machine/atom-pc.conf
>>>>>>
>>>>> meta-yocto seems to be the place you need to look!
>>>>>
>>>>> I hope that the layering tools can help to detect and inform folks of this like of dependency.
>>>>
>>>> Isn't meta-yocto supposed to a the integration layer with no new
>>>> parts? I can't use meta-yocto since it has conflicting beagleboard
>>>> stuff in it, which means that meta-intel is now broken for me as well.
>>>> That surely isn't the intended plan?!?!
>>>
>>> The plan on public record is that atom-pc moves to meta-intel as soon as
>>> the layer tooling comes online and meta-yocto becomes its own repo
>>> (which at present its not but its certainly the intent).
>>
>> Until then, and even afterwards can we please get some testing of
>> non-poky builds done?  I know the autobuilder is full but can't we toss
>> a few things onto a personal box and try that a few times a week?
> 
> Sure, the more people testing the various combinations the better!

I fear I'm not being clear.  Can You, Saul and maybe other folks making
frequent submissions and are at times more poky-oriented than not, do
this as well?  While I'd love the world I'd settle for a bunch of -g's
to catch obvious problems and a console-image or something..

-- 
Tom Rini
Mentor Graphics Corporation