On Sun, 2012-08-19 at 00:44 -0400, Bruce Ashfield wrote: > On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Richard Purdie > <richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > On Sat, 2012-08-18 at 13:15 -0400, Bruce Ashfield wrote: > >> On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Richard Purdie > >> <richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> > On Wed, 2012-08-15 at 16:06 -0400, Bruce Ashfield wrote: > >> >> Here's a consolidated update that I've had under test in one > >> >> way or another for 3 weeks now. Tom Z and others have also been > >> >> using parts of this for their work, so it has seen a reasonably > >> >> wide set of testers. > >> >> > >> >> This series further streamlines working with linux-yocto* based > >> >> recipes/repositories by breaking the last branch based triggers > >> >> in the tooling. Branches were the most important piece of > >> >> information when working with the tools and a linux-yocto repository, > >> >> but this has now been generalized, and BSP descriptions (among > >> >> other things) are now found by MACHINE and kernel type only. > >> >> > >> >> With this, KBRANCH now becomes what it was supposed to be, an > >> >> human readible indication of the branch that is supposed to be > >> >> built, and one that the kern-tools will validate. If that branch > >> >> is not validated, an error is thrown. If the default branch is > >> >> left as-is, then the in-tree description leaves you on the > >> >> proper branch and all is well. > >> >> > >> >> I also have a collection of bug fixes to the tools, including > >> >> support for having a meta branch not called 'meta'. > >> >> > >> >> I'd recommend that this go through some AB tests, and I'll be > >> >> around if there's a corner case that I managed to miss. > >> > > >> > I think > >> > > >> > http://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org:8010/builders/nightly-tiny/builds/199/steps/shell_34/logs/stdio > >> > >> Judging by the timestamps on your two email, is this not addressed by > >> the workaround > >> for git's behaviour ? > > > > Correct, it fails with the fix applied so I think its something > > different. > > poky-tiny and linux-yocto-tiny .. argh .. they are a bit out of date, and out > of site. Darren and I will have to drag them forward, since they are rotting > a bit. > > Anyway, I got to trade 4 or 5 hours against the time that the fetcher stole > from you today. :( > > I fixed the poky-tiny build here, and the patch is simple enough in the end: > > http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/log/?h=zedd/kernel-tiny > > linux-yocto-tiny: set default branch > > To streamline the creation of build time branches (branches that are > not always present in the upstream kernel repository), linux-yocto-tiny > should specify a default kernel branch. By setting the default branch > (KBRANCH_DEFAULT) and also setting the build branch (KBRANCH) to that > default, the tools will allow the board description to be processed > and no branching forced. > > Signed-off-by: Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfi...@windriver.com> > > > > > >> On the surface, it looks to be the same thing, > >> since a branch that > >> should exist in the repository isn't there. > >> > >> I'll fire of a poky-tiny build for qemu here, to see if I can > >> reproduce this one. > > > > We also have an atom-pc failure which may or may not be related: > > > > http://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org:8010/builders/nightly-x86/builds/648/steps/shell_50/logs/stdio > > Not related to the other fix, but I have a fix for the atom-pc build > against 3.0 here: > > http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/log/?h=zedd/kernel-3.0-fix > > commit 569438febfdd6bffceb919e1050b020c7fcb8f89 > Author: Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfi...@windriver.com> > Date: Sun Aug 19 00:28:41 2012 -0400 > > linux-yocto/3.0: update meta SRCREV > > Bumping the meta SRCREV to pickup this fix: > > meta: rename virto.scc to virtio.scc > > The virtio configuration block is misnamed. BSPs that include it with > the proper name, now throw an error (as they should). So fixing the > name of the fragment fixes the build. > > Signed-off-by: Bruce Ashfield <bruce.ashfi...@windriver.com> > > The tools did their job and flagged an invalid include in that BSP. > Before, those > options were tossed in the bin, now we error. > > I've fixed the BSP configuration, and checked the other kernels, it builds > here > now. > > It's late, so I tossed these fixes out like this, if you want me to resend > them > again tomorrow, I can, but I won't be around until the end of the day.
Thanks for the fixes. I've pulled various things into master now and will queue up another build to test everything. Cheers, Richard _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
