Hi Paul,
> Personally with how fragile package management can end up being, I'm
> convinced
> that full-image updates are the way to go for a lot of cases, but ideally
> with
> some intelligence so that you only ship the changes (at a filesystem level
> rather than a package or file level). Th
On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 3:05 PM, Paul Eggleton
wrote:
> Personally with how fragile package management can end up being, I'm convinced
> that full-image updates are the way to go for a lot of cases, but ideally with
> some intelligence so that you only ship the changes (at a filesystem level
> rath
On 07/08/2014 14:05, Paul Eggleton wrote:
> Hi Alex,
>
> On Thursday 07 August 2014 11:13:02 Alex J Lennon wrote:
>> On 07/08/2014 10:10, Paul Eggleton wrote:
>> fwiw Upgrade solutions are something that is still a read need imho, as
>> I think we discussed at one of the FOSDEMs.
>>
>> (The other
Hi Alex,
On Thursday 07 August 2014 11:13:02 Alex J Lennon wrote:
> On 07/08/2014 10:10, Paul Eggleton wrote:
> fwiw Upgrade solutions are something that is still a read need imho, as
> I think we discussed at one of the FOSDEMs.
>
> (The other real need being an on-board test framework, again im
Paul,
I am using the Yocto Project tools almost purely for userspace applications. I
have tried to use the ADT and SDK in the past with limited success. I try to
keep my local poky/oe working copies near up to date, which would mean
rebuilding the SDK/ADT for each poky point release. For me
On 07/08/2014 10:10, Paul Eggleton wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> As most of you know within the Yocto Project and OpenEmbedded we've been
> trying to figure out how to improve the OE developer workflow. This
> potentially
> covers a lot of different areas, but one in particular I where think we can
>
