From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [64.235.106.9] (helo=astoria.ccjclearline.com) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MUgQ5-0007AW-Ha for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Sat, 25 Jul 2009 14:32:09 +0200 Received: from [12.42.230.2] (helo=crashcourse.ca) by astoria.ccjclearline.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MUgC4-00041g-Qu for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Sat, 25 Jul 2009 08:17:40 -0400 Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 08:15:08 -0400 (EDT) From: "Robert P. J. Day" X-X-Sender: rpjday@localhost To: OpenEmbedded Development mailing list Message-ID: User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LFD 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - astoria.ccjclearline.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - lists.openembedded.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - crashcourse.ca X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Subject: getting bitbake-1.8.12 for the org.openembedded.dev branch? X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 12:32:09 -0000 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII i wasn't sure of the proper ML to post this on, but the OE devel list seems like a good bet. i was building angstrom for the beagleboard on my fedora 11 system, and it was working fine with the "stable/2009" branch since that branch comes with bitbake-1.8.12 embedded in the checkout under the bitbake/ directory. so far, so good. however, when i switch to the org.openembedded.dev branch, *that* branch comes (weirdly?) with an incomplete bitbake directory (no bin/, just lib/) so, suddenly, i have no bitbake anymore. there *is* a bitbake in the fedora repo, but it's only 1.8.10 so it's not sufficient. and i can always download the 1.8.12 tarball but installing a straight tarball is not something i'm crazy about since i like to go thru the package manager to keep things organized. would it not make more sense to have even the "dev" branch come with the required version of bitbake embedded in the checkout? or, failing that, just toss that incomplete bitbake directory entirely? p.s. i put in a bugzilla request some time ago to get the newest bitbake in the fedora repo: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=503226 so far, no action. maybe i'll poke someone again. rday -- ======================================================================== Robert P. J. Day Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry. Web page: http://crashcourse.ca Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday "Kernel Newbie Corner" column @ linux.com: http://cli.gs/WG6WYX ========================================================================