[yocto] Dropbear configuration
I am trying to configure dropbear to do the following.
1) Only listen on port 22 of the tun0 interface (made by openvpn service).
2) Only use public key authorization.
To do this I've overridden the dropbear.socket file with my own.
start
[Unit]
Conflicts=dropbear.service
After=openvpn@foo.service
Wants=openvpn@foo.service
[Socket]
ListenStream=22
Accept=yes
BindToDevice=tun0 <<< made by open vpn
[Install]
WantedBy=sockets.target
Also=dropbearkey.service
finish
I also install my public key to where I think dropbear needs the keys.
bb append snippet---
do_install_append() {
install -d ${D}/root/.ssh
install -m 0600 ${WORKDIR}/authorized_keys ${D}/root/.ssh/authorized_keys
echo 'DROPBEAR_EXTRA_ARGS="-E -g"'> ${D}${sysconfdir}/default/dropbear
}
FILES_${PN} += "/home/root/.ssh/authorized_keys"
---
Currently the system finds a system ordering loop and shuts down openvpn.
How do I get the dropbear.socket to depend on openvpn - when openvpn
depends on the sockets being up (and sockets.target wants
dropbear.socket)? Is there another way to have dropbear only look at
the tun0 port 22 and not the eth0 port 22?
Thanks
--
___
yocto mailing list
yocto@yoctoproject.org
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
[yocto] Yocto Project Status WW22
Current Dev Position: 1.9 Milestone 1 (M1) Next Deadline: M1 cut off of June 23rd Key Status/Updates: There is an RFC about removing bitbake's update_data datastore operation being considered on the mailing list. YP 1.6.3 and has been released this week. The 1.6.x series will now move to community support. Meta-Intel 3.0 has finished QA and will be released early next week. Key YP 1.9 Dates: M2 Cut off July 28, 2015 1.9 Feature Freeze Date/M3 Cut off: Aug. 25, 2015 M4 Cut off: Sept. 29, 2015 1.9 M1 Release Target: Before July 10, 2015 1.9 M2 Release Target: Before Aug. 14, 2015 1.9 M3 Release Target: Before Sept. 11 2015 1.9 final Release Target: Before Oct. 30, 2015 Key Status Links for YP: https://wiki.yoctoproject.org/wiki/Yocto_Project_v1.9_Status https://wiki.yoctoproject.org/wiki/Yocto_1.9_Schedule https://wiki.yoctoproject.org/wiki/Yocto_1.9_Features [If anyone has suggestions for other information you'd like to see on this weekly status update, let us know!] Stephen K. Jolley Yocto Project Program Manager INTEL, MS JF1-255, 2111 N.E. 25th Avenue, Hillsboro, OR 97124 * Work Telephone: (503) 712-0534 *Cell:(208) 244-4460 * Email: stephen.k.jol...@intel.com -- ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Re: [yocto] getting started...
Hi Ed, On 05/27/15 16:32, Ed Sutter wrote: > This year I have two ongoing iMX6 based linux projects, and may need > to use a beaglebone > or RPi for some other small project. > > The point of the above detail is that I'd like to backup a bit and > attempt to use Yocto to > organize all four of these with one instance of Yocto/Poky. Is that > practical? Yes, that would be a great idea!Have a look at angstrom, for example: http://www.angstrom-distribution.org. They build one distro for a whole bunch of different machines. As such, they start with a whole bunch of different layers, most of which are BSP layers, and then simply do: $ MACHINE= bitbake e.g. $ MACHINE=raspberrypi2 bitbake angstrom-image $ MACHINE=beaglebone bitbake angstrom-image ... and build the exact same image for a bunch of different boards/machines. They've recently switched to using a repo manifest (which I think is a great idea): https://github.com/Angstrom-distribution/angstrom-manifest I've been playing around with doing essentially the same thing for a "poky" distribution here (but it's still a work-in-progress and not really ready for prime time yet): https://github.com/twoerner/layer-repos > Seems > to me that is the ideal goal of Yocto, but I don't see many BSPs > listed under the project > downloads page. Take a look here: http://layers.openembedded.org/layerindex/branch/master/layers this is the "master" list of all the "known" layers, recipes, etc. As you can see, there are quite a few BSP layers. Best regards, Trevor -- ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Re: [yocto] Question on building out-of-tree modules on the target
Hi Scott, On 05/18/15 10:42, Rifenbark, Scott M wrote: > I have a section in the YP Linux Kernel Development Manual that talks about > building out-of-tree-modules on the target - Interestingly enough, I was just reading through that document the other day. As soon as I saw a section titled "Building Out-Of-Tree Modules _On The Target_" I thought to myself "why would anyone be doing development on the target and not the host?" and skipped to the next section. If it were me, I'd just remove that section altogether. I'm of the opinion that doing development work on the target is wrong (if for no other reason than to prove your cross-development setup is working correctly), but that's just me. ;-) -- ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Re: [yocto] Question on building out-of-tree modules on the target
On May 29, 2015 3:21:04 PM EDT, Trevor Woerner wrote: >Hi Scott, > >On 05/18/15 10:42, Rifenbark, Scott M wrote: >> I have a section in the YP Linux Kernel Development Manual that talks >about building out-of-tree-modules on the target - > >Interestingly enough, I was just reading through that document the >other >day. As soon as I saw a section titled "Building Out-Of-Tree Modules >_On >The Target_" I thought to myself "why would anyone be doing development >on the target and not the host?" and skipped to the next section. > >If it were me, I'd just remove that section altogether. I'm of the >opinion that doing development work on the target is wrong (if for no >other reason than to prove your cross-development setup is working >correctly), but that's just me. > >;-) Your assuming the target isn't powerful enough for compiling. What if it is? Then this can make life easier if the target can do it and avoid cross compilers , however it's pretty rare. Nick -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -- ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Re: [yocto] Keybinding on Matchbox, press a key and run an app
Hi Robert, On 05/18/15 13:50, Robert Tulke wrote: > Hi i’ve a question, how i can create a keybinding or mapping for a specific > key to run an application? > > So what i want, i’ll press for example F12 and that will start a application? It depends. If you're running a GUI environment with a window manager of some sort, then you'll have to read up on that window manager's documentation to see if binding a key to an event is possible. If it is, each manager will have its own way of doing this. For example fvwm2 has the "Key" command which you would have to configure in a .fvwm2rc configuration file. Each user has their own such configuration file, so just because, say F12 works one way for one user, doesn't mean it'll do anything for another user. xfce has its own way of configuring key bindings. I have no idea if sato supports this. If you wanted to set a key binding that would work across users then you'd have to look at the underlying display manager, which is probably X in your case, and see if/how you'd tie into the X event system (I'm not even sure it's possible at this level). If you're using Wayland instead of X, I have no idea. If you're not using a GUI environment, I wouldn't have the faintest idea how to do this (or if it is even possible) using just a plain ol' console. Maybe this will help: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Keyboard_shortcuts -- ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Re: [yocto] Question on building out-of-tree modules on the target
On 05/29/15 15:28, Nicholas Krause wrote: > On May 29, 2015 3:21:04 PM EDT, Trevor Woerner wrote: >> If it were me, I'd just remove that section altogether. I'm of the >> opinion that doing development work on the target is wrong (if for no >> other reason than to prove your cross-development setup is working >> correctly), but that's just me. >> >> ;-) > Your assuming the target isn't powerful enough for compiling. What if it is? That's why I included that part in parenthesis :-) Many "embedded" devices are well powerful enough for compiling, but doing all your development on the host computer demonstrates your cross-development environment is properly configured for all development tasks. -- ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Re: [yocto] Question on building out-of-tree modules on the target
On May 29, 2015 3:37:34 PM EDT, Trevor Woerner wrote: >On 05/29/15 15:28, Nicholas Krause wrote: >> On May 29, 2015 3:21:04 PM EDT, Trevor Woerner >wrote: >>> If it were me, I'd just remove that section altogether. I'm of the >>> opinion that doing development work on the target is wrong (if for >no >>> other reason than to prove your cross-development setup is working >>> correctly), but that's just me. >>> >>> ;-) >> Your assuming the target isn't powerful enough for compiling. What if >it is? > >That's why I included that part in parenthesis :-) Many "embedded" >devices are well powerful enough for compiling, but doing all your >development on the host computer demonstrates your cross-development >environment is properly configured for all development tasks. This is exactly my thought too. You many want to put in an explanation about this in the manual through. IMHO, Nick -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -- ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Re: [yocto] Question on building out-of-tree modules on the target
On 5/29/15, 12:21 PM, "Trevor Woerner" wrote: >Hi Scott, > >On 05/18/15 10:42, Rifenbark, Scott M wrote: >> I have a section in the YP Linux Kernel Development Manual that talks >>about building out-of-tree-modules on the target - > >Interestingly enough, I was just reading through that document the other >day. As soon as I saw a section titled "Building Out-Of-Tree Modules _On >The Target_" I thought to myself "why would anyone be doing development >on the target and not the host?" and skipped to the next section. > >If it were me, I'd just remove that section altogether. I'm of the >opinion that doing development work on the target is wrong (if for no >other reason than to prove your cross-development setup is working >correctly), but that's just me. > >;-) > I personally agree, but having it documented means I get to answer a lot few emails about people insisting on doing this. The section stays. -- Darren Hart Intel Open Source Technology Center -- ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Re: [yocto] Question on building out-of-tree modules on the target
Ok - so we established that we want it... If I get some clarifications in there about the "rarity" of the situation that would allow someone to develop on the target and also the benefits of having a verified cross-development system if they were to develop on the host, does the rest of the section stand as is? Are there any issues with it? Thanks, Scott >-Original Message- >From: Hart, Darren >Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 12:40 PM >To: Trevor Woerner; Rifenbark, Scott M; yocto@yoctoproject.org >Cc: Wold, Saul >Subject: Re: [yocto] Question on building out-of-tree modules on the target > >On 5/29/15, 12:21 PM, "Trevor Woerner" wrote: > >>Hi Scott, >> >>On 05/18/15 10:42, Rifenbark, Scott M wrote: >>> I have a section in the YP Linux Kernel Development Manual that talks >>>about building out-of-tree-modules on the target - >> >>Interestingly enough, I was just reading through that document the >>other day. As soon as I saw a section titled "Building Out-Of-Tree >>Modules _On The Target_" I thought to myself "why would anyone be doing >>development on the target and not the host?" and skipped to the next >section. >> >>If it were me, I'd just remove that section altogether. I'm of the >>opinion that doing development work on the target is wrong (if for no >>other reason than to prove your cross-development setup is working >>correctly), but that's just me. >> >>;-) >> > >I personally agree, but having it documented means I get to answer a lot few >emails about people insisting on doing this. The section stays. > >-- >Darren Hart >Intel Open Source Technology Center > -- ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Re: [yocto] Question on building out-of-tree modules on the target
On 5/29/15, 12:46 PM, "Rifenbark, Scott M" wrote: >Ok - so we established that we want it... If I get some clarifications in >there about the "rarity" of the situation that would allow someone to >develop on the target and also the benefits of having a verified >cross-development system if they were to develop on the host, does the >rest of the section stand as is? Are there any issues with it? Adding something like: "While the traditional Yocto Project development model would be to include kernel modules as part of the normal build process, some developers find it useful to build modules on the target." This section is lagging the 1.8 addition of kernel-devsrc, which was not applied uniformly across all included SDK images. There is probably a patch necessary to do that for a 1.8 point release, and then this document could be made to reflect that. -- Darren > >Thanks, >Scott > >>-Original Message- >>From: Hart, Darren >>Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 12:40 PM >>To: Trevor Woerner; Rifenbark, Scott M; yocto@yoctoproject.org >>Cc: Wold, Saul >>Subject: Re: [yocto] Question on building out-of-tree modules on the >>target >> >>On 5/29/15, 12:21 PM, "Trevor Woerner" wrote: >> >>>Hi Scott, >>> >>>On 05/18/15 10:42, Rifenbark, Scott M wrote: I have a section in the YP Linux Kernel Development Manual that talks about building out-of-tree-modules on the target - >>> >>>Interestingly enough, I was just reading through that document the >>>other day. As soon as I saw a section titled "Building Out-Of-Tree >>>Modules _On The Target_" I thought to myself "why would anyone be doing >>>development on the target and not the host?" and skipped to the next >>section. >>> >>>If it were me, I'd just remove that section altogether. I'm of the >>>opinion that doing development work on the target is wrong (if for no >>>other reason than to prove your cross-development setup is working >>>correctly), but that's just me. >>> >>>;-) >>> >> >>I personally agree, but having it documented means I get to answer a lot >>few >>emails about people insisting on doing this. The section stays. >> >>-- >>Darren Hart >>Intel Open Source Technology Center >> > > -- Darren Hart Intel Open Source Technology Center -- ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Re: [yocto] Question on building out-of-tree modules on the target
Darren, Thanks for the extra information. I will take action on it and then throw the URL to the section out here in the list for a look. Scott >-Original Message- >From: Hart, Darren >Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 12:59 PM >To: Rifenbark, Scott M; Trevor Woerner; yocto@yoctoproject.org >Cc: Wold, Saul >Subject: Re: [yocto] Question on building out-of-tree modules on the target > >On 5/29/15, 12:46 PM, "Rifenbark, Scott M" >wrote: > >>Ok - so we established that we want it... If I get some clarifications >>in there about the "rarity" of the situation that would allow someone >>to develop on the target and also the benefits of having a verified >>cross-development system if they were to develop on the host, does the >>rest of the section stand as is? Are there any issues with it? > > >Adding something like: > >"While the traditional Yocto Project development model would be to include >kernel modules as part of the normal build process, some developers find it >useful to build modules on the target." > >This section is lagging the 1.8 addition of kernel-devsrc, which was not >applied >uniformly across all included SDK images. There is probably a patch necessary >to do that for a 1.8 point release, and then this document could be made to >reflect that. > >-- >Darren > >> >>Thanks, >>Scott >> >>>-Original Message- >>>From: Hart, Darren >>>Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 12:40 PM >>>To: Trevor Woerner; Rifenbark, Scott M; yocto@yoctoproject.org >>>Cc: Wold, Saul >>>Subject: Re: [yocto] Question on building out-of-tree modules on the >>>target >>> >>>On 5/29/15, 12:21 PM, "Trevor Woerner" wrote: >>> Hi Scott, On 05/18/15 10:42, Rifenbark, Scott M wrote: > I have a section in the YP Linux Kernel Development Manual that >talks about building out-of-tree-modules on the target - Interestingly enough, I was just reading through that document the other day. As soon as I saw a section titled "Building Out-Of-Tree Modules _On The Target_" I thought to myself "why would anyone be doing development on the target and not the host?" and skipped to the next >>>section. If it were me, I'd just remove that section altogether. I'm of the opinion that doing development work on the target is wrong (if for no other reason than to prove your cross-development setup is working correctly), but that's just me. ;-) >>> >>>I personally agree, but having it documented means I get to answer a >>>lot few emails about people insisting on doing this. The section >>>stays. >>> >>>-- >>>Darren Hart >>>Intel Open Source Technology Center >>> >> >> > > >-- >Darren Hart >Intel Open Source Technology Center > -- ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Re: [yocto] Question on building out-of-tree modules on the target
Hi, I added a clarifying paragraph at the start of this section. Also, for the last paragraph I mentioned kernel-devsrc. I could not find any commits that I understood looking in poky for "kernel-devsrc" so from the comment you gave Darren about the package not being uniformly installed on all *.sdk images, I improvised. Let me know of any corrections. http://www.yoctoproject.org/docs/1.9/kernel-dev/kernel-dev.html#building-out-of-tree-modules-on-the-target Thanks, Scott >-Original Message- >From: Hart, Darren >Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 12:59 PM >To: Rifenbark, Scott M; Trevor Woerner; yocto@yoctoproject.org >Cc: Wold, Saul >Subject: Re: [yocto] Question on building out-of-tree modules on the target > >On 5/29/15, 12:46 PM, "Rifenbark, Scott M" >wrote: > >>Ok - so we established that we want it... If I get some clarifications >>in there about the "rarity" of the situation that would allow someone >>to develop on the target and also the benefits of having a verified >>cross-development system if they were to develop on the host, does the >>rest of the section stand as is? Are there any issues with it? > > >Adding something like: > >"While the traditional Yocto Project development model would be to include >kernel modules as part of the normal build process, some developers find it >useful to build modules on the target." > >This section is lagging the 1.8 addition of kernel-devsrc, which was not >applied >uniformly across all included SDK images. There is probably a patch necessary >to do that for a 1.8 point release, and then this document could be made to >reflect that. > >-- >Darren > >> >>Thanks, >>Scott >> >>>-Original Message- >>>From: Hart, Darren >>>Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 12:40 PM >>>To: Trevor Woerner; Rifenbark, Scott M; yocto@yoctoproject.org >>>Cc: Wold, Saul >>>Subject: Re: [yocto] Question on building out-of-tree modules on the >>>target >>> >>>On 5/29/15, 12:21 PM, "Trevor Woerner" wrote: >>> Hi Scott, On 05/18/15 10:42, Rifenbark, Scott M wrote: > I have a section in the YP Linux Kernel Development Manual that >talks about building out-of-tree-modules on the target - Interestingly enough, I was just reading through that document the other day. As soon as I saw a section titled "Building Out-Of-Tree Modules _On The Target_" I thought to myself "why would anyone be doing development on the target and not the host?" and skipped to the next >>>section. If it were me, I'd just remove that section altogether. I'm of the opinion that doing development work on the target is wrong (if for no other reason than to prove your cross-development setup is working correctly), but that's just me. ;-) >>> >>>I personally agree, but having it documented means I get to answer a >>>lot few emails about people insisting on doing this. The section >>>stays. >>> >>>-- >>>Darren Hart >>>Intel Open Source Technology Center >>> >> >> > > >-- >Darren Hart >Intel Open Source Technology Center > -- ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
[yocto] build hello_world.c in yocto
HI team Question what are the necessary IMAGE_INSTALL_append to build a c hello world in an core-image-minimal ? If I just add gcc .. then I need "as" when I try to gcc -0 hello hello.c I will add gcc and gcc-dev .. anyone else that I might be missing ? Thanks a lot and regards Victor Rodriguez -- ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
[yocto] overriding equals
If a BSP layer sets a preferred kernel using an equals sign (e.g. PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/kernel = "linux-raspberrypi") is there any way of overriding this decision that doesn't involve: 1) forking the layer 2) hoping the maintainer accepts a relevant patch 3) creating my own DISTRO ? If I create my own kernel (linux-raspberrypi2-rt) in my own layer and set PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/kernel = "linux-raspberrypi2-rt" in my conf/local.conf, bitbake still complains that there are multiple providers for virtual/kernel and suggests I set PREFERRED_PROVIDER haha, very funny :-) -- ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Re: [yocto] overriding equals
> On May 29, 2015, at 2:58 PM, Trevor Woerner wrote: > > If a BSP layer sets a preferred kernel using an equals sign (e.g. > PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/kernel = "linux-raspberrypi") is there any > way of overriding this decision that doesn't involve: > 1) forking the layer > 2) hoping the maintainer accepts a relevant patch > 3) creating my own DISTRO > ? you may try the following in your config metadata ( local.conf ) PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/kernel_forcevariable = "linux-raspberrypi" > > If I create my own kernel (linux-raspberrypi2-rt) in my own layer and > set PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/kernel = "linux-raspberrypi2-rt" in my > conf/local.conf, bitbake still complains that there are multiple > providers for virtual/kernel and suggests I set PREFERRED_PROVIDER > > haha, very funny :-) > -- > ___ > yocto mailing list > yocto@yoctoproject.org > https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail -- ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
Re: [yocto] GCC 4.8.2 build errors
This issue ended up going away when I wiped my build folder and started with a new one. On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 9:39 PM, Jesse Cobra wrote: > Always reproducible on this build folder. > > Just created a new build folder and kicked off a brand new build. See if > that works... > > my setup: > > repo init -u git://git.freescale.com/imx/fsl-arm-yocto-bsp.git -b > imx-3.14.28-1.0.0_ga > repo sync > MACHINE=imx6qsabreauto source fsl-setup-release.sh -b newbuild > bitbake core-image-minimal > > On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 7:12 PM, Khem Raj wrote: > >> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 3:46 PM, Jesse Cobra >> wrote: >> > >> /media/build_drive/3_10/build/tmp/work-shared/gcc-4.8.2-r0/gcc-4.8.2/gcc/cp/parser.c >> > -o cp/parser.o >> > | >> > >> /media/build_drive/3_10/build/tmp/work-shared/gcc-4.8.2-r0/gcc-4.8.2/gcc/cp/parser.c: >> > In function 'bool cp_parser_tokens_start_cast_expression(cp_parser*)': >> > | >> > >> /media/build_drive/3_10/build/tmp/work-shared/gcc-4.8.2-r0/gcc-4.8.2/gcc/cp/parser.c:7159:12: >> > error: 'ref_qual' was not declared in this scope >> > | return ref_qual; >> > | ^ >> > | make[2]: *** [cp/parser.o] Error 1 >> >> >> is it always reproducible ? can you try same for say qemumips or >> qemux86 as machine and see if it fails in same way ? >> > > -- ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
