From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [80.91.229.2] (helo=ciao.gmane.org) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MVOgn-0007N9-7G for openembedded-devel@openembedded.org; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 13:48:21 +0200 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1MVOSa-0005wY-Ci for openembedded-devel@openembedded.org; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 11:33:40 +0000 Received: from s55917625.adsl.wanadoo.nl ([85.145.118.37]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 11:33:40 +0000 Received: from k.kooi by s55917625.adsl.wanadoo.nl with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 11:33:40 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: openembedded-devel@openembedded.org From: Koen Kooi Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 13:33:26 +0200 Message-ID: References: <200907251651.19932.holger+oe@freyther.de> <200907270743.12287.holger+oe@freyther.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: s55917625.adsl.wanadoo.nl User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.1.1pre) Gecko/20090712 Shredder/3.0b3pre In-Reply-To: <200907270743.12287.holger+oe@freyther.de> Sender: news 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: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 11:48:21 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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