From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NZNtz-0003Kl-QQ for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Mon, 25 Jan 2010 13:18:46 +0100 Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.50) id 1NZNrj-0002DS-Oo for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Mon, 25 Jan 2010 13:16:23 +0100 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, 25 Jan 2010 13:16:23 +0100 Received: from k.kooi by s55917625.adsl.wanadoo.nl with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 25 Jan 2010 13:16:23 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org From: Koen Kooi Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 13:15:54 +0100 Message-ID: References: <1263888104.2678.15.camel@ubuntu-desktop> <201001241610.24013.holger+oe@freyther.de> <201001250345.51424.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 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20100113 Shredder/3.0.2pre In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0 Sender: news X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 80.91.229.12 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: gcho-openembedded-devel@m.gmane.org 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 12:18:48 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 25-01-10 12:49, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > 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? *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. regards, Koen -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin) iD8DBQFLXYt5MkyGM64RGpERAjcZAJ9/EskJ5wwW6yvdkzOXlRBCerbYyACfdOM4 HmGTgPTWrbAexAZv9zpXhqI= =Tz1I -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----