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 1NZOD6-0006Ph-Vb for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Mon, 25 Jan 2010 13:38:32 +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 1NZOAp-000055-Vy for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Mon, 25 Jan 2010 07:36:08 -0500 Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 07:35:15 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert P. J. Day" X-X-Sender: rpjday@localhost To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org In-Reply-To: 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 12:38:32 -0000 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Mon, 25 Jan 2010, Koen Kooi wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 25-01-10 12:49, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > 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? > > *If* is has bitbake builtin, users should use that one, as it is > certain that bitbake will match the metadata. You can opt to choose > to install a bitbake yourself, but then it's up to you to make sure > bitbake and OE match. Since stable/2009 is a long term branch we > decided to put bitbake in there to remove at least on point of > failure. ok, i'll point that out, thanks. rday -- ======================================================================== Robert P. J. Day Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA Linux Consulting, Training and Kernel Pedantry. Web page: http://crashcourse.ca Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday ========================================================================