2010/8/16 Khem Raj <[email protected]>: > On (15/08/10 23:25), Mike Westerhof wrote: >> Frans Meulenbroeks wrote: >> ... >> > Anyway, if there are issues because of this action, or if you feel >> > removal of a recipe was not in accordance with the TSC guidelines, let >> > me know and I'll repair. >> >> Well, here's the first one, docbook-sgml-dtd-3.1-native, full log below: > > > heh I am running into same problem when building from scratch :) This is my > temporary fix that I am > building with now at least it goes thru parse stage. I havent looked the > effects of bumping up this dependency version yet. May be its ok may be it > is wrong. > > diff --git a/recipes/docbook-utils/docbook-utils-native_0.6.14.bb > b/recipes/docbook-utils/docbook-utils-native_0.6.14.bb > index 595aa50..52c2ebb 100644 > --- a/recipes/docbook-utils/docbook-utils-native_0.6.14.bb > +++ b/recipes/docbook-utils/docbook-utils-native_0.6.14.bb > @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ LICENSE = "GPL" > > PR = "r2" > > -DEPENDS = "openjade-native sgmlspl-native docbook-dsssl-stylesheets-native > docbook-sgml-dtd-3.1-native" > +DEPENDS = "openjade-native sgmlspl-native docbook-dsssl-stylesheets-native > docbook-sgml-dtd-4.4-native" > > SRC_URI = > "ftp://sources.redhat.com/pub/docbook-tools/new-trials/SOURCES/docbook-utils-${PV}.tar.gz"; > S = "${WORKDIR}/docbook-utils-${PV}" >
Seems a nice patch to me. If desired also feel free to revert my removal patch. Apparently I overlooked the case where recipes could DEPEND on specific versions of a recipe. There are probably a few more cases of this (easily identified as bitbake will complain immediately if it bumps into one of these). I'll peek at it tonight. And wrt everyone hit by this: my apologies. but hey: that is the risk if you want to live on the edge Have fun! Frans _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
