From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3DF27200F for ; Wed, 5 Nov 2014 22:56:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 05 Nov 2014 14:56:09 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.07,322,1413270000"; d="scan'208";a="617844989" Received: from unknown (HELO [10.255.13.89]) ([10.255.13.89]) by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 05 Nov 2014 14:52:33 -0800 Message-ID: <545AAA30.40604@linux.intel.com> Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2014 14:52:32 -0800 From: Saul Wold User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Otavio Salvador , Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer References: In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [for-daisy] Pseudo backport breaks build in some hosts X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list 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, 05 Nov 2014 22:56:32 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 11/05/2014 12:34 PM, Otavio Salvador wrote: > Hello, > > In clean hosts the pseudo build is broken. It seems to be lacking the > attr dependency which has been added during the Dizzy development > cycle but not included when doing the backport for Daisy; I suspect it > has not been detected in Yocto Project AB because it should have attr > headers available. > We actually just completed a full pass QA cycle on what was to be 1.6.2rc1, we found a couple of issues that are being address (like we forgot to bump the actual Poky DISTRO_VERSION and the build-appliance rev). Along with a couple more CVE patches that have come in. As you point out it did go through a full AB, which has different Linux OS setups. The fact that this was missed, I am not sure. > We seem to need a better way to test backports as this is the second > time backports has included regressions. I think we ought to have a > daisy-next (and likely dizzy-next) branches with intended fixes for > easy testing outside of Yocto Project AB and get wider exposure for > different host setups. > So I have been pushing my changes to daisy-next prior to them being merged into daisy itself. You are welcome to pull from it, test it and report back, just beware that it can be rebased. Sau! > Best Regards, >