On 9/9/11 2:13 PM, Tom Zanussi wrote: > On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 10:45 -0700, Richard Purdie wrote: >> On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 08:57 -0500, Tom Zanussi wrote: >>> On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 06:17 -0700, Richard Purdie wrote: >>>> On Thu, 2011-09-08 at 14:27 -0500, tom.zanu...@intel.com wrote: >>>>> From: Tom Zanussi <tom.zanu...@intel.com> >>>>> >>>>> oe-core commit dc3a8274c7e935fa564eea142d2535c9bcf2b272 for YOCTO #1428 >>>>> broke meta-intel x86_64 builds: >>>>> >>>>> NOTE: Resolving any missing task queue dependencies >>>>> ERROR: Nothing RPROVIDES 'initramfs-live-install' (but >>>>> /usr/local/src/yocto/sugarbay/meta/recipes-core/images/core-image-minimal-initramfs.bb >>>>> RDEPENDS on or otherwise requires it) >>>>> ERROR: initramfs-live-install was skipped: incompatible with host >>>>> x86_64-poky-linux >>>>> >>>>> This patchset restores the build. >>>>> >>>>> Build and install-tested on sugarbay and crownbay. >>>>> >>>>> More fixes for [YOCTO #1428] >>>>> >>>>> The following changes since commit >>>>> b86f811663d834064af1e6778c408eb904fad0b9: >>>>> Darren Hart (1): >>>>> n450: update linux-yocto PREFERRED_VERSION to 3.0% >>>>> >>>>> are available in the git repository at: >>>>> >>>>> git://git.yoctoproject.org/meta-intel.git tzanussi/1428-fix >>>>> >>>>> http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit/cgit.cgi/meta-intel/log/?h=tzanussi/1428-fix >>>>> >>>>> Tom Zanussi (2): >>>>> meta-intel/common: create a grub2 version initramfs-live-install >>>>> meta-intel/common: remove initramfs-live-install 1.0 bbappend >>>> >>>> Is there a disadvantage to moving to grub2 in OE-Core and then bringing >>>> these pieces into sync? >>>> >>> >>> Yes, it would make sense - the plan was to do that during the 1.2 >>> cycle... >> >> If someone can confirm that 32 and 64 bit live images work with grub2 >> and there is no good reason not to do this, I'd be in favour of doing >> this now rather than explain why its a mess... >> > > I haven't tried the 32-bit BSPs with grub2 - been focused on other > things until this incomplete fix for 1428 seems to have forced the > issue, but can try it over the weekend and see what happens. > > grub2 isn't a simple version bump from the legacy grub 0.97, but is a > completely incompatible re-write - I thought being more cautious in > removing the grub 0.97 that's worked fine for everything but the couple > of 64-bit meta-intel BSPs that need it would be something for 1.2, but > if it can go in now, why not...
We need to keep the older grub 0.97 as well. grub2 is GPLv3 and a lot of people will refuse to use it based on that. --Mark > Tom > >> Cheers, >> >> Richard >> > > > _______________________________________________ > yocto mailing list > yocto@yoctoproject.org > https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto _______________________________________________ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
