> Von: openembedded-core-boun...@lists.openembedded.org
> [mailto:openembedded-core-boun...@lists.openembedded.org] Im Auftrag
> von Stefan Herbrechtsmeier
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 12. März 2013 15:49
> An: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> Betreff: [OE-core] [PATCH] boost: Add real native su
It's already checked in. Sorry for the noise..
jesse
On 03/25/2013 10:03 AM, Jesse Zhang wrote:
> Ping. Anyone has comments?
>
> jesse
>
> On 03/19/2013 10:07 AM, Jesse Zhang wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I recently found that perl packages are broken in multilib builds. On a lib32
>> image, everything i
Removed manual creation of '/usr/bin/gpg' link to 'gpg2' and replaced with
proper usage of update-alternatives.
Signed-off-by: Paul Barker
---
meta/recipes-support/gnupg/gnupg_2.0.19.bb |9 +
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/meta/recipes-support/gnupg/gnu
Ping. Anyone has comments?
jesse
On 03/19/2013 10:07 AM, Jesse Zhang wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I recently found that perl packages are broken in multilib builds. On a lib32
> image, everything including perl is lib32 and installs to /usr/lib. These perl
> packages are "all" arch, which is fine except tha
I'm setting up a signed apt repository of .deb packages built using OpenEmbedded
and I've ran into an issue with apt-get on the target board not being able to
find 'gpgv' to verify the signatures. This is installed as 'gpgv2' in the gnupg
recipe. Therefore I've used update-alternatives to create th
Added update-alternatives entry linking '/usr/bin/gpgv' to 'gpgv2'. This is
required to allow apt-get to verify a signed repository.
Signed-off-by: Paul Barker
---
meta/recipes-support/gnupg/gnupg_2.0.19.bb |5 -
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/meta/recipes-s
Le Sun, 24 Mar 2013 11:55:09 -0500,
John Weber a écrit :
> Showing my ignorance here, but is a manifest created with all of the packaged
> licenses? Is it possible for the developer to ship that if they see fit?
>
> I think what Otavio was trying to do was to keep /lib/firmware from being
> c
Showing my ignorance here, but is a manifest created with all of the packaged
licenses? Is it possible for the developer to ship that if they see fit?
I think what Otavio was trying to do was to keep /lib/firmware from being
cluttered with license files. At least, that is the benefit as I see
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Eric Bénard wrote:
> Hi Otavio,
>
> Le Sat, 23 Mar 2013 17:30:58 -0300,
> Otavio Salvador a écrit :
>> We don't ship license files with packages and firmware packages are no
>> different; drop them.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Otavio Salvador
>
> there may be a good re
Hi Otavio,
Le Sat, 23 Mar 2013 17:30:58 -0300,
Otavio Salvador a écrit :
> We don't ship license files with packages and firmware packages are no
> different; drop them.
>
> Signed-off-by: Otavio Salvador
there may be a good reason to distribute the license files together with
the firmware's b
Problems that prevented using of previous upstream version of coreutils
fixed in latest upstream release.
The following changes since commit 41c0241a810f0a97ddc98a834e717645e0047958:
tcl: Fix the location of the installed headers (2013-03-23 18:09:54 +)
are available in the git repository
11 matches
Mail list logo
