On 09/02/2011 09:23, Steffen Sledz wrote: > Am 09.02.2011 10:10, schrieb Graeme Gregory: >> On 09/02/2011 07:52, Steffen Sledz wrote: >>> Am 04.02.2011 12:51, schrieb Steffen Sledz: >>>> I'm a bit confused about the Angstrom versions. >>>> >>>> Setting in local.conf is >>>> >>>> DISTRO = "angstrom-2008.1" >>>> >>>> but bitbake reports >>>> >>>> Build Configuration: >>>> BB_VERSION = "1.10.2" >>>> METADATA_BRANCH = "testing-next" >>>> METADATA_REVISION = "3a7b93a" >>>> TARGET_ARCH = "arm" >>>> TARGET_OS = "linux-gnueabi" >>>> MACHINE = "hipox" >>>> DISTRO = "angstrom" >>>> DISTRO_VERSION = "2010.7-test-20110204" >>>> TARGET_FPU = "soft" >>>> >>>> Is this intented? >>>> >>>> BTW: Which is the suggested/released Ångström version? >>>> http://www.angstrom-distribution.org/ seems to be not very helpful here. >>>> e.g. the FAQ link results in an PAGE NOT FOUND. :( >> 2008.1 is the "stable" version of Angstrom which has all the benefit of >> our extensive toolchain testing. >> >> 2010.x is angstrom-next and is the in progress version moving to gcc 4.5 >> blah blah blah. > OK, but why bitbake reports DISTRO_VERSION = "2010.7-test-20110204" if it is > set to DISTRO = "angstrom-2008.1" ??? > Because thats the actual version of the DISTRO produced.
We discovered if we rename the file people dont read emails or error messages and waste a week debugging non issues so we stopped renaming the file. Graeme _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
