On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 00:32, McClintock Matthew-B29882
wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 6:29 PM, Otavio Salvador
> wrote:
>> I see your point but add more "must be online" requirements is wrong
>> IMO.
>
> It must be online though in this case?
The code you add needs to be running on target an
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 18:19, Tom Zanussi wrote:
...
> So was I right back then, or is there another place I should be putting
> this?
This might be made shared in meta-intel to avoid having this
information duplicated between all machines but it doesn't fit oe-core
IMO.
--
Otavio Salvador
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 13:28, Paul Eggleton
wrote:
> On Friday 18 November 2011 16:22:37 Koen Kooi wrote:
>> What follows is a generic question and in no way a criticism or comment on
>> your RFC: Have you thought about using git am'able patches for these
>> things?Upstream for QT is using git, s
2011/11/18 Paul Eggleton
> On Friday 18 November 2011 15:28:28 Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
> > Is ordering of PACKAGES relevant? If so, please enlighten me why.
>
> It is. The packaging code reads this in order and the first package to
> match a
> file is the package that the file will go into; thu
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 04:02:49PM +0100, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
> 2011/11/18 Paul Eggleton
>
> > On Friday 18 November 2011 15:28:28 Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
> > > Is ordering of PACKAGES relevant? If so, please enlighten me why.
> >
> > It is. The packaging code reads this in order and the
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Otavio Salvador
wrote:
>> It must be online though in this case?
>
> The code you add needs to be running on target and doesn't work at
> rootfs built time. This is bad and adds more complications to
> read-only-fs support.
This works *perfectly* with a read only
On Sat, 2011-11-19 at 18:59 +, McClintock Matthew-B29882 wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Otavio Salvador
> wrote:
> >> It must be online though in this case?
> >
> > The code you add needs to be running on target and doesn't work at
> > rootfs built time. This is bad and adds more co
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Phil Blundell wrote:
>> This works *perfectly* with a read only fs. Each time it boots removes
>> the non-working serial ports. One could argue that it does NOT work
>> completely as expected with a writable file system.
>
> Um, the patch you sent seems to modify /
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 16:59, McClintock Matthew-B29882
wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Otavio Salvador
> wrote:
>>> It must be online though in this case?
>>
>> The code you add needs to be running on target and doesn't work at
>> rootfs built time. This is bad and adds more complicat
Op 19 nov. 2011, om 19:59 heeft McClintock Matthew-B29882 het volgende
geschreven:
> On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Otavio Salvador
> wrote:
>>> It must be online though in this case?
>>
>> The code you add needs to be running on target and doesn't work at
>> rootfs built time. This is bad a
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Otavio Salvador
wrote:
>> This will not work as a post rootfs hook as I've explained before. Let
>> me give you a more concrete example: We have a root file stored in
>> flash. We use it to boot from on a system with 4 serial ports. We use
>> the same image again t
11 matches
Mail list logo
