From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.pbcl.net ([88.198.119.4] helo=hetzner.pbcl.net) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QbwPu-0008C7-0g for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 17:11:02 +0200 Received: from cambridge.roku.com ([81.142.160.137] helo=[172.30.1.145]) by hetzner.pbcl.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QbwML-0001Ee-It for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 17:07:21 +0200 From: Phil Blundell To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer In-Reply-To: References: <1309358918.2551.48.camel@phil-desktop> <1309359293.2551.49.camel@phil-desktop> Organization: Phil Blundell Consulting Ltd Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 16:07:20 +0100 Message-ID: <1309360040.2551.56.camel@phil-desktop> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.3 Subject: Re: bitbake -b busted again? X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 15:11:02 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 2011-06-29 at 16:55 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote: > Op 29 jun 2011, om 16:54 heeft Phil Blundell het volgende geschreven: > > > On Wed, 2011-06-29 at 15:48 +0100, Phil Blundell wrote: > >> Using bitbake master from today, I'm now getting this error whenever I > >> try to do "bitbake -b anything.bb": > > > > Actually, it looks like I was just unlucky/unskilled in my choice of > > recipes when I tested. It does in fact work for at least some files; > > there must be something about the ones I was trying to begin with that > > is upsetting it. I'll investigate further. > > Try bitbake -b /full/path/to/recipe, that seems to make things work for me. It seems that the main problem I was having was that (coincidentally in light of the earlier gst discussion) the recipe I was trying to build was unluckily named and being skipped because base.bbclass thought I wasn't licensed to use it. The code which detects commerciality is somewhat simple-minded and just does a straight regex search for ${PN} within ${COMMERCIAL_LICENSE}, so if your recipe happens to be called "fmp" (for example) it will match against ffmpeg and you will lose. I think this has probably just started to bite me because I recently started using default-distrovars.inc. Possibly that was a dim plan on my part. p.