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 1MUpHy-0008AA-84 for openembedded-devel@openembedded.org; Sun, 26 Jul 2009 00:00:22 +0200 Received: from [64.208.221.2] (helo=crashcourse.ca) by astoria.ccjclearline.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MUp3v-0005Bi-BH for openembedded-devel@openembedded.org; Sat, 25 Jul 2009 17:45:51 -0400 Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 17:43:09 -0400 (EDT) From: "Robert P. J. Day" X-X-Sender: rpjday@localhost To: openembedded-devel@openembedded.org In-Reply-To: <200907251651.19932.holger+oe@freyther.de> Message-ID: References: <200907251452.41374.holger+oe@freyther.de> <200907251651.19932.holger+oe@freyther.de> 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 - 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: Re: 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 22:00:22 -0000 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII 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 ========================================================================