From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix, from userid 118) id 39270E0076F; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 02:52:27 -0800 (PST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on yocto-www.yoctoproject.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,T_HDRS_LCASE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-HAM-Report: * -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] * 0.0 T_HDRS_LCASE Odd capitalization of message header Received: from astoria.ccjclearline.com (astoria.ccjclearline.com [64.235.106.9]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0522E0074C for ; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 02:52:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from [99.240.204.5] (port=37612 helo=crashcourse.ca) by astoria.ccjclearline.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1YQZZe-0000HC-JT; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 05:52:15 -0500 Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 05:52:11 -0500 (EST) From: "Robert P. J. Day" X-X-Sender: rpjday@localhost To: Yocto discussion list Message-ID: User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (LFD 23 2013-08-11) 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 - yoctoproject.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: more observations on kernel dev manual X-BeenThere: yocto@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of all things Yocto Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 10:52:27 -0000 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII been a while since i went through this manual so some probably simple observations -- based on in-progress manual. if scott rifenbark wants to process any of this, he has my blessing. section 2.2.2: i'm assuming that list of SRC_URIs should actually read? ... first-change... ... second-change ... ... third-change ... section 2.2.3: should that note not refer to the "defconfig" file and not the ".config" file? as in, the defconfig file is used as the *basis* for the eventual .config file, no? so the note should be discussing applying the changes from the "defconfig" file, should it not? section 2.3.2: hang on ... "Complete a build at least through the kernel configuration task as follows: $ bitbake linux-yocto -c kernel_configme -f" but i thought that "-c " would run *only* that bitbake task ... the wording suggests that that command will run everything *up to* that task. also in that section, "are not't" should just say "aren't" in sample warning output. section 2.3.3: again, first para suggests that that command should process the kernel all the way "through" the kernel configuration. that's it for chapter 2 ... more later. rday -- ======================================================================== Robert P. J. Day Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA http://crashcourse.ca Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday LinkedIn: http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday ========================================================================