From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from astoria.ccjclearline.com ([64.235.106.9]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NZNV4-0007jw-Aj for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:53:01 +0100 Received: from cpe00142a336e11-cm001ac318e826.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com ([174.113.191.234] helo=crashcourse.ca) by astoria.ccjclearline.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NZNSp-0005hD-4u for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Mon, 25 Jan 2010 06:50:39 -0500 Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 06:49:36 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert P. J. Day" X-X-Sender: rpjday@localhost To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org In-Reply-To: <201001250345.51424.holger+oe@freyther.de> Message-ID: References: <1263888104.2678.15.camel@ubuntu-desktop> <201001241610.24013.holger+oe@freyther.de> <201001250345.51424.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 - 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: X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 64.235.106.9 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: rpjday@crashcourse.ca X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:20:07 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on linuxtogo.org); Unknown failure Subject: Re: Bitbake build error on Fedora 12 x86 64-bit 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: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 11:53:01 -0000 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 25 Jan 2010, Holger Hans Peter Freyther wrote: > On Sunday 24 January 2010 16:34:43 Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > > > On the other hand I agree totally agree that more testers the > > > better, but IMO this would also mean that they follow the low > > > volume bitbake-dev mailinglist, to get information like the > > > svn->git switch, branches and such?! > > > > i'm currently updating the bitbake manual (yes, you should be > > nervous) and i noticed that there is nothing early on about how to > > *get* bitbake. so i'm going to add a short section, suggesting > > first to use the latest official tarball (explaining where to get > > it), followed by a section for more advanced users on how to check > > it out, with the appropriate cautions. > > Thanks a lot for doing this update. still working on it, but a question. a while back, i observed that one of the OE branches (stable/2009?) came with bitbake built in, while the other i work with (dev) did not. or was it the other way around? and there was some confusion as to why the situation would be different between the two branches. can i document that, no matter what branch one is working with, the proper approach is to download bitbake separately and make sure that's the one that's being invoked. (i might add a short side note that some branches came with bitbake built in, but users should *not* take advantage of that.) does that sound reasonable? rday -- ======================================================================== Robert P. J. Day Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA Linux Consulting, Training and Kernel Pedantry. Web page: http://crashcourse.ca Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday ========================================================================