Seeing this change reminded me that we really should move grub_1.98 to
oe-core, is there any objection to this? Any reason this should not be
part of oe-core to support general x86_64 machines?
Sau!
On 08/31/2011 07:34 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
Grub's configure task was picking up the host f
Yes, the problem was due to missing dependent options..
I had incorrectly assumed that dependent options would get pulled in
or perhaps a error would be generated.
It worked after I added following 3 options stated as dependent options
in a Kernel configuration database that I saw:
CONFIG_ISA
CO
On 11-09-01 2:11 PM, Saxena, Rahul wrote:
Yes, the problem was due to missing dependent options..
I had incorrectly assumed that dependent options would get pulled in
or perhaps a error would be generated.
A warning can (and will) be generated for options that are
set by a BSP and don't end up
On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 11:11 -0700, Saxena, Rahul wrote:
> Yes, the problem was due to missing dependent options..
> I had incorrectly assumed that dependent options would get pulled in
> or perhaps a error would be generated.
> It worked after I added following 3 options stated as dependent optio
On 08/31/2011 04:49 PM, Bodke, Kishore K wrote:
Hi,
I am trying to build core-image-sato with rt kernel for sugarbay and it
fails for the do_rootfs .
Attached is the build log.
Could you please let me know what went wrong?
Did you save a log of the build itself by any chance? It seems stra
Yes, I had noticed that it is part of intel-1 feature also.
I tend to think that it is better to separate out CONFIG_E100 option from
intel-1
I think that platforms that want 1G/10G enabled would not need 10/100 driver
>> It means that config option was never set or got turned off bec
On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 11:34 -0700, Saxena, Rahul wrote:
> Yes, I had noticed that it is part of intel-1 feature also.
>
> I tend to think that it is better to separate out CONFIG_E100 option from
> intel-1
> I think that platforms that want 1G/10G enabled would not need 10/100 driver
>
Cover letter for the delete duplicate statement and delete unused cfg fragment
patches
Rahul Saxena (2):
Removed duplicate statement
Removed unused cfg file
meta/cfg/kernel-cache/bsp/fishriver/eg20t.cfg | 39 -
meta/cfg/kernel-cache/bsp/fishriver/fishriver.scc |
Removed duplicate statement
---
meta/cfg/kernel-cache/bsp/fishriver/fishriver.scc |1 -
1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/meta/cfg/kernel-cache/bsp/fishriver/fishriver.scc
b/meta/cfg/kernel-cache/bsp/fishriver/fishriver.scc
index 0abde0d..6e3d385 100644
--- a/met
Removed unused cfg file
---
meta/cfg/kernel-cache/bsp/fishriver/eg20t.cfg | 39 -
1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 39 deletions(-)
delete mode 100644 meta/cfg/kernel-cache/bsp/fishriver/eg20t.cfg
diff --git a/meta/cfg/kernel-cache/bsp/fishriver/eg20t.cfg
b/meta/cfg/ke
On 08/31/2011 07:34 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
> Grub's configure task was picking up the host freetype libraries if
> bitbake hadn't gotten around building freetype yet. We could add a
> dependency on freetype, but it's only used for the optional grub-mkfont
> utility which we don't really need.
>
On 08/31/2011 09:19 PM, Tom Zanussi wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2011-08-31 at 16:49 -0700, Bodke, Kishore K wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>>
>> I am trying to build core-image-sato with rt kernel for sugarbay and
>> it fails for the do_rootfs .
>>
>
> FWIW, I was able to build and boot core-image-sato with the
Clean build with the below TOM's two commit IDs worked for me, if I do not add
IMAGE_INSTALL += "rttests" for sugarbay.
It failed if I add the IMAGE_INSTALL += "rttests"
Thanks
Kishore.
-Original Message-
From: Darren Hart [mailto:dvh...@linux.intel.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 20
On 11-09-01 4:41 PM, Saxena, Rahul wrote:
Cover letter for the delete duplicate statement and delete unused cfg
fragment patches
Thanks. These look good. I'm preparing a pull request right now, so I'll
merge these and include them in that update.
Bruce
Rahul Saxena (2):
Removed duplicate s
On 09/01/2011 02:01 PM, Bodke, Kishore K wrote:
> Clean build with the below TOM's two commit IDs worked for me, if I
> do not add IMAGE_INSTALL += "rttests" for sugarbay.
>
> It failed if I add the IMAGE_INSTALL += "rttests"
Do you get the same error? If so, it's starting to sound like the secon
Yeah, it is the same do_rootfs failure I get for both the builds.
Thanks
Kishore.
-Original Message-
From: Darren Hart [mailto:dvh...@linux.intel.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 2:08 PM
To: Bodke, Kishore K
Cc: Zanussi, Tom; yocto@yoctoproject.org; Hart, Darren; Saxena, Rahul
Subj
Can you report the output of:
$ bitbake -e core-image-sato | egrep "^IMAGE_INSTALL="
Thanks,
Darren
On 09/01/2011 02:14 PM, Bodke, Kishore K wrote:
> Yeah, it is the same do_rootfs failure I get for both the builds.
> Thanks
> Kishore.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Darren Hart [mailto
For the build I removed the rttests in the IMAGE_INSTALL , so it is not showing
up here.
bitbake -e core-image-sato | egrep "IMAGE_INSTALL="
# MULTILIB_IMAGE_INSTALL=
# IMAGE_INSTALL=${POKY_BASE_INSTALL}
IMAGE_INSTALL="task-core-boot task-base-exte
18 matches
Mail list logo
