getting bitbake-1.8.12 for the org.openembedded.dev branch?

getting bitbake-1.8.12 for the org.openembedded.dev branch?

[Robert P. J. Day]

  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
========================================================================

Re: getting bitbake-1.8.12 for the org.openembedded.dev branch?

[Holger Hans Peter Freyther]

On Saturday 25 July 2009 14:15:08 Robert P. J. Day wrote:

>   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?

If you look into this directory it will only contain *.pyc files and I don't 
think it makes any sense to put bitbake into the OpenEmbedded repository.

z.

Re: getting bitbake-1.8.12 for the org.openembedded.dev branch?

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Sat, 25 Jul 2009, Holger Hans Peter Freyther wrote:

> On Saturday 25 July 2009 14:15:08 Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>
> >   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?
>
> If you look into this directory it will only contain *.pyc files and
> I don't think it makes any sense to put bitbake into the
> OpenEmbedded repository.

  in a sense, i agree with that.  the problem is that the precedent
has already been set by having bitbake in the stable/2009 branch and,
based on the principle of least surprise, you shouldn't suddenly yank
something out of a branch if developers are used to seeing it there.

  for consistency, either bitbake should be included in an OE
checkout, or it shouldn't.  it shouldn't depend on which branch you're
working with.  that way lies confusion.

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
========================================================================

Re: getting bitbake-1.8.12 for the org.openembedded.dev branch?

[Graeme Gregory]

Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Jul 2009, Holger Hans Peter Freyther wrote:
>
>   
>> On Saturday 25 July 2009 14:15:08 Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>>
>>     
>>>   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?
>>>       
>> If you look into this directory it will only contain *.pyc files and
>> I don't think it makes any sense to put bitbake into the
>> OpenEmbedded repository.
>>     
>
>   in a sense, i agree with that.  the problem is that the precedent
> has already been set by having bitbake in the stable/2009 branch and,
> based on the principle of least surprise, you shouldn't suddenly yank
> something out of a branch if developers are used to seeing it there.
>
>   
Your standing on your head. Bitbake wasnt yanked out of anything. It was 
added to the stable branch in good engineering fashion as thats the 
version stable/2009 will always build with. Development moves with 
bitbake so it makes no sense to put it in.

Graeme

Re: getting bitbake-1.8.12 for the org.openembedded.dev branch?

[Richard Purdie]

On Sat, 2009-07-25 at 14:42 +0100, Graeme Gregory wrote:
> Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> >   in a sense, i agree with that.  the problem is that the precedent
> > has already been set by having bitbake in the stable/2009 branch and,
> > based on the principle of least surprise, you shouldn't suddenly yank
> > something out of a branch if developers are used to seeing it there.
> >
>
> Your standing on your head. Bitbake wasnt yanked out of anything. It was 
> added to the stable branch in good engineering fashion as thats the 
> version stable/2009 will always build with. Development moves with 
> bitbake so it makes no sense to put it in.

Think of this as being like an autotools project. When you make a
"release" you include the generated autoconf output but you don't
include that in the master repository.

Our stable branch/release includes bitbake, the main OE.dev repository
does not. Bitbake is a project in its own right, the reasons for keeping
it separate have been discussed and made clear in the past, not least
that we have multiple branches of bitbake and people use a variety of
them with OE.dev.

Also note that bitbake DOES NOT NEED TO BE INSTALLED. Just check it out
somewhere and use it. I wish more people would realise that :/.

Cheers,

Richard

Re: getting bitbake-1.8.12 for the org.openembedded.dev branch?

[Holger Hans Peter Freyther]

On Saturday 25 July 2009 15:01:20 Robert P. J. Day wrote:

>   for consistency, either bitbake should be included in an OE
> checkout, or it shouldn't.  it shouldn't depend on which branch you're
> working with.  that way lies confusion.


In which way do you see breakage? bin/bitbake is gone when you switch from 
stable to dev? So you executed the host bitbake (which you said was bitbake 
1.8.10). What error happened?


z.

Re: getting bitbake-1.8.12 for the org.openembedded.dev branch?

[Marcin Juszkiewicz]

Dnia sobota, 25 lipca 2009 o 15:01:20 Robert P. J. Day napisał(a):

Greame already replied but I want to write as stable/2009 creator.

> the problem is that the precedent has already been set by having
> bitbake in the stable/2009 branch and, based on the principle of least
> surprise, you shouldn't suddenly yank something out of a branch if
> developers are used to seeing it there.
>
> for consistency, either bitbake should be included in an OE checkout,
> or it shouldn't.  it shouldn't depend on which branch you're working
> with.  that way lies confusion.

Bitbake is moving target. OE.dev can be used with Bitbake 1.8.12 release 
or Bitbake 1.8 branch or Bitbake trunk (master on git server or 1.9.x in 
numbering). 

We do not know what tomorrow will bring - maybe OE.dev will start to 
require Bitbake 1.8.14 as minimal version and will work fine with HEAD 
of 1.9 (aka master) branch. This will require developers to update their 
Bitbake to newer. 

For stable/2009 branch we require 1.8.12 version as it was minimal 
version required by OE.dev branch at that time. We do not know will it 
work with 1.8.14 or any newer release - maybe it will, maybe it will 
generate unbootable images. Thats why Bitbake was added in that branch.

Again: OE.dev works with many versions of Bitbake and developer can 
choose any of working ones (1.8.12, 1.8-HEAD, master-HEAD) for his 
builds. For stable/2009 we support only included 1.8.12 version.

Regards, 
-- 
JID:      hrw@jabber.org
Website:  http://marcin.juszkiewicz.com.pl/
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcinjuszkiewicz

Re: getting bitbake-1.8.12 for the org.openembedded.dev branch?

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Sat, 25 Jul 2009, Holger Hans Peter Freyther wrote:

> On Saturday 25 July 2009 15:01:20 Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>
> >   for consistency, either bitbake should be included in an OE
> > checkout, or it shouldn't.  it shouldn't depend on which branch
> > you're working with.  that way lies confusion.
>
> In which way do you see breakage? bin/bitbake is gone when you
> switch from stable to dev? So you executed the host bitbake (which
> you said was bitbake 1.8.10). What error happened?

  it was temporary breakage since, when i switched to the dev branch,
the invocation of bitbake reverted to the fedora-installed package,
which was 1.8.10, which was rejected as being too old for the dev
branch.  it just took a few seconds to realize what had happened.

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
========================================================================

Re: getting bitbake-1.8.12 for the org.openembedded.dev branch?

[Koen Kooi]

On 25-07-09 23:43, Robert P. J. Day wrote:

>
>    it was temporary breakage since, when i switched to the dev branch,
> the invocation of bitbake reverted to the fedora-installed package,
> which was 1.8.10, which was rejected as being too old for the dev
> branch.  it just took a few seconds to realize what had happened.

Quoted from a bitbake developer: "I wish people would stop installing 
bitbake, there's no need to do that".

regards,

Koen

Re: getting bitbake-1.8.12 for the org.openembedded.dev branch?

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Sat, 25 Jul 2009, Richard Purdie wrote:

> Also note that bitbake DOES NOT NEED TO BE INSTALLED. Just check it
> out somewhere and use it. I wish more people would realise that :/.

  fair enough, that's obviously the correct approach, thanks.

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
========================================================================

Re: getting bitbake-1.8.12 for the org.openembedded.dev branch?

[Holger Hans Peter Freyther]

On Saturday 25 July 2009 23:43:09 Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Jul 2009, Holger Hans Peter Freyther wrote:
> > On Saturday 25 July 2009 15:01:20 Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > >   for consistency, either bitbake should be included in an OE
> > > checkout, or it shouldn't.  it shouldn't depend on which branch
> > > you're working with.  that way lies confusion.
> >
> > In which way do you see breakage? bin/bitbake is gone when you
> > switch from stable to dev? So you executed the host bitbake (which
> > you said was bitbake 1.8.10). What error happened?
>
>   it was temporary breakage since, when i switched to the dev branch,
> the invocation of bitbake reverted to the fedora-installed package,
> which was 1.8.10, which was rejected as being too old for the dev
> branch.  it just took a few seconds to realize what had happened.

Looking at this. First of all the answers were not as friendly as they should 
have been. Second, I think you have a point that there is a inconsistency with 
stable and dev.

Personally I'm not using stable so I have no idea.

Marcin, Koen. Do you switch from dev to stable? How do you do that? Do you 
have two complete build trees for stable/dev?

holger

Re: getting bitbake-1.8.12 for the org.openembedded.dev branch?

[Marcin Juszkiewicz]

Dnia poniedziałek, 27 lipca 2009 o 07:43:12 Holger Hans Peter Freyther 
napisał(a):

> Marcin, Koen. Do you switch from dev to stable? How do you do that?
> Do you have two complete build trees for stable/dev?

I have OE metadata in ~/devel/oe/openembedded/ and use it to any builds 
which use .dev branch. I also use that directory for all pushing stuff 
(for .dev, stable/2009 and others).

Builds are stored in ~/devel/build/NAME-OF-BUILD/ directory. They are 
mostly from .dev tree.

To build from stable/2009 I have ~/devel/build/stable/ directory which 
contains copy of OE metadata (without pushing).

For .dev builds I use Bitbake from ~/devel/bitbake/ which contains GIT 
tree with master (1.9.x) branch selected.

Regards, 
-- 
JID:      hrw@jabber.org
Website:  http://marcin.juszkiewicz.com.pl/
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcinjuszkiewicz

Re: getting bitbake-1.8.12 for the org.openembedded.dev branch?

[Koen Kooi]

On 27-07-09 07:43, Holger Hans Peter Freyther wrote:
> On Saturday 25 July 2009 23:43:09 Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Jul 2009, Holger Hans Peter Freyther wrote:
>>> On Saturday 25 July 2009 15:01:20 Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>>>>    for consistency, either bitbake should be included in an OE
>>>> checkout, or it shouldn't.  it shouldn't depend on which branch
>>>> you're working with.  that way lies confusion.
>>>
>>> In which way do you see breakage? bin/bitbake is gone when you
>>> switch from stable to dev? So you executed the host bitbake (which
>>> you said was bitbake 1.8.10). What error happened?
>>
>>    it was temporary breakage since, when i switched to the dev branch,
>> the invocation of bitbake reverted to the fedora-installed package,
>> which was 1.8.10, which was rejected as being too old for the dev
>> branch.  it just took a few seconds to realize what had happened.
>
> Looking at this. First of all the answers were not as friendly as they should
> have been. Second, I think you have a point that there is a inconsistency with
> stable and dev.
>
> Personally I'm not using stable so I have no idea.
>
> Marcin, Koen. Do you switch from dev to stable? How do you do that? Do you
> have two complete build trees for stable/dev?

I use the same bitbake for both in my F11 VM and bitbake 1.8-head for 
.dev on my debian buildmachine, but with seperate TMPDIRs and BBPATH on 
each machine.

regards,

Koen

Re: getting bitbake-1.8.12 for the org.openembedded.dev branch?

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Mon, 27 Jul 2009, Holger Hans Peter Freyther wrote:

> On Saturday 25 July 2009 23:43:09 Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > On Sat, 25 Jul 2009, Holger Hans Peter Freyther wrote:
> > > On Saturday 25 July 2009 15:01:20 Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > > >   for consistency, either bitbake should be included in an OE
> > > > checkout, or it shouldn't.  it shouldn't depend on which
> > > > branch you're working with.  that way lies confusion.
> > >
> > > In which way do you see breakage? bin/bitbake is gone when you
> > > switch from stable to dev? So you executed the host bitbake
> > > (which you said was bitbake 1.8.10). What error happened?
> >
> >   it was temporary breakage since, when i switched to the dev
> > branch, the invocation of bitbake reverted to the fedora-installed
> > package, which was 1.8.10, which was rejected as being too old for
> > the dev branch.  it just took a few seconds to realize what had
> > happened.
>
> Looking at this. First of all the answers were not as friendly as
> they should have been. Second, I think you have a point that there
> is a inconsistency with stable and dev.
>
> Personally I'm not using stable so I have no idea.
>
> Marcin, Koen. Do you switch from dev to stable? How do you do that?
> Do you have two complete build trees for stable/dev?

  i wasn't trying to make a big deal of this, only pointing out that
there was some definite confusion in switching from the stable branch
to the dev branch and having bitbake suddenly "stop working."  i
understand how it works now, but it's possible others will trip over
that same issue.

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
========================================================================