On 10/08/12 12:43, Martin Ertsaas wrote:
> From: Thomas Kristensen
>
> If you wish to change the install/unpack method of the sdk, this can now be
> done by making
> your own create_shar method, and setting a SDK_PACKAGING_FUNC variable to your
> new create_shar function.
>
> Signed-off-by: Thoma
On 10/03/12 14:51, Martin Ertsaas wrote:
> From: Thomas Kristensen
>
> If you wish to change the install/unpack method of the sdk, this can now be
> done by making
> your own create_shar method, and setting a POPULATE_SDK_CREATE_SHAR_COMMAND
> variable to your
> new create_shar function.
>
> Sig
On 10/02/12 15:59, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Martin Ertsås wrote:
>> On 10/02/12 15:53, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Phil Blundell wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 2012-10-02 at 10:42 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
&
On 10/02/12 15:53, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Phil Blundell wrote:
>> On Tue, 2012-10-02 at 10:42 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>>> Or IMAGE_FEATURES += "dbg-img" ;-)
>> Where is that implemented? I couldn't find any obvious reference to
>> dbg-img in any classes.
>
What is the status of this patch? Are there more changes needed for this
to make it in master, or are we just waiting until after 1.3?
- Martin
On 09/20/12 08:48, Saul Wold wrote:
> On 09/19/2012 11:05 PM, Martin Ertsås wrote:
>> On 09/19/12 17:02, Saul Wold wrote:
>>> On 0
On 09/20/12 08:48, Saul Wold wrote:
> On 09/19/2012 11:05 PM, Martin Ertsås wrote:
>> On 09/19/12 17:02, Saul Wold wrote:
>>> On 09/19/2012 12:16 AM, Martin Ertsaas wrote:
>>>> bash-3.2.48 did not provide the linking from sh to bash, making it
>>>> unusabl
On 09/19/12 17:02, Saul Wold wrote:
> On 09/19/2012 12:16 AM, Martin Ertsaas wrote:
>> bash-3.2.48 did not provide the linking from sh to bash, making it
>> unusable.
>> Moving the license part out of the bash.inc file, and into
>> bash_4.2.bb file makes
>> us able to use that file also for bash_3.
On 09/18/12 16:55, Saul Wold wrote:
> On 09/18/2012 05:52 AM, Martin Ertsaas wrote:
>> bash-3.2.48 did not provide the linking from sh to bash, making it
>> unusable.
>> This patch fixes this. The reason for using 3.2.48 is that it is
>> GPLv2 licensed,
>> which 4.2 is not.
>> ---
>> meta/recipes
On 09/11/12 10:29, Martin Ertsaas wrote:
> 3.2.48 is the bash package in oe-core which is not GPLv3. Making that a
> nativesdk
> package makes sure we have the same bash version in our toolchain as in our
> image.
>
> Signed-off-by: Martin Ertsaas
> ---
> meta/recipes-extended/bash/bash_3.2.48.
On 09/06/12 21:43, Mark Hatle wrote:
> On 9/6/12 2:11 PM, Saul Wold wrote:
>> On 09/06/2012 01:29 AM, Martin Ertsaas wrote:
>>> The old config put stuff in
>>> ${perldir}/image/usr/local/oecore-x86_64/sysroot/x86_64-unknownsdk-linux/usr/local/oecore-x86_64/sysroots/x86_64-unknownsdk-linux/usr
>>> i
Hi.
You could have a look at g...@github.com:martiert/meta-qt5.git as a
starting point. Have not tried anything but the qt5-x11-free packages,
which makes what is needed for rendering, but it is at least a starting
point.
- Martin
On 08/23/12 19:59, Sravan wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I never worked on o
will break on non-armv7a chips.
- Martin
On 07/26/12 16:08, Koen Kooi wrote:
> Op 26-07-12 16:02, Martin Ertsås schreef:
> > Hi.
>
> > I have just made a new layer, for qt5 recipes. This contains work in
> > progress recipes, but should be working. In the (not so) long run, q
Hi.
I have just made a new layer, for qt5 recipes. This contains work in
progress recipes, but should be working. In the (not so) long run, qt5
recipes will hopefully be added to oe-core, but in the meantime these
are available.
The recipes are based on the qt4 recipes in oe-core from 4-5 months
On 07/19/12 13:41, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-07-19 at 13:34 +0200, Martin Ertsås wrote:
>> On 07/19/12 13:35, Martin Jansa wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 01:15:17PM +0200, Martin Ertsaas wrote:
>>>> The branches repo for eglibc is /branches, not /
On 07/19/12 13:35, Martin Jansa wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 01:15:17PM +0200, Martin Ertsaas wrote:
>> The branches repo for eglibc is /branches, not /svn/branches.
> Are you sure? wasn't this tested on broken bitbake where protocol param
> was ignored and default svn:// protocol was used inst
15 matches
Mail list logo