Re: [OE-core] [PATCH v2 1/3] binutils: Upgrade to 2.40 release
On 1/23/23 16:38, Khem Raj wrote: On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 9:25 AM Jeff Law wrote: On 1/18/23 21:27, Khem Raj wrote: Signed-off-by: Khem Raj --- v1 -> v2: - Fix build on mingw - Backport fix to build with --disable-gdb [ ... ] Note I think this is going to run afoul of grub2 mkimage. In binutils-2.40 the assembler for risc-v was changed to use CALL_PLT relocations rather than CALL relocations. grub2 does not handle CALL_PLT relocations which in turn will cause a failure when grub2-mkimage is used on risc-v. As far as I can tell, the assembler change literally just changes the relocation number, they are otherwise treated the same. So I think grub2 can be fixed by just treating R_RISCV_CALL_PLT just like R_RISCV_CALL in kern/riscv/dl.c. Nelson, can you confirm that all your assembler change did was change the relocation used in the resultant object? The binutils change is here https://sourceware.org/git/?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=commit;h=70f35d72ef04cd23771875c1661c9975044a749c I tried something like this http://sprunge.us/ZjpFCI I still get | grub-mkimage: error: relocation 0x13 is not implemented yet. need to look more. That's what I would think the right fix ought to be. Weird. I think mkimage is run as a host tool, so I'd dig into the build of that on the host. jeff -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#176324): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/176324 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/96371613/21656 Group Owner: openembedded-core+ow...@lists.openembedded.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [OE-core] [PATCH v2 1/3] binutils: Upgrade to 2.40 release
On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 9:25 AM Jeff Law wrote: > > > > On 1/18/23 21:27, Khem Raj wrote: > > Signed-off-by: Khem Raj > > --- > > v1 -> v2: > > - Fix build on mingw > > - Backport fix to build with --disable-gdb > [ ... ] > Note I think this is going to run afoul of grub2 mkimage. > > In binutils-2.40 the assembler for risc-v was changed to use CALL_PLT > relocations rather than CALL relocations. grub2 does not handle > CALL_PLT relocations which in turn will cause a failure when > grub2-mkimage is used on risc-v. > > As far as I can tell, the assembler change literally just changes the > relocation number, they are otherwise treated the same. So I think > grub2 can be fixed by just treating R_RISCV_CALL_PLT just like > R_RISCV_CALL in kern/riscv/dl.c. > > Nelson, can you confirm that all your assembler change did was change > the relocation used in the resultant object? The binutils change is here https://sourceware.org/git/?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=commit;h=70f35d72ef04cd23771875c1661c9975044a749c I tried something like this http://sprunge.us/ZjpFCI I still get | grub-mkimage: error: relocation 0x13 is not implemented yet. need to look more. > > Jeff -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#176318): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/176318 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/96371613/21656 Group Owner: openembedded-core+ow...@lists.openembedded.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [OE-core] [PATCH v2 1/3] binutils: Upgrade to 2.40 release
On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 2:58 PM Luca Ceresoli wrote:
>
> Hi Khem,
>
> On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 08:52:09 -0800
> "Khem Raj" wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 1:44 AM Luca Ceresoli
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Khem,
> > >
> > > On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 20:27:22 -0800
> > > "Khem Raj" wrote:
> > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Khem Raj
>
> This version is failing too:
>
> https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/typhoon/#/builders/65/builds/6592/steps/14/logs/stdio
> https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/typhoon/#/builders/122/builds/2263/steps/12/logs/stdio
> https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/typhoon/#/builders/42/builds/6521/steps/14/logs/stdio
>
my bad. I have fixed the mingw32 patch and sent v3. Please try that
patchset out.
> ...
>
> > > > diff --git a/meta/conf/distro/include/tcmode-default.inc
> b/meta/conf/distro/include/tcmode-default.inc
> > > > index 4d4929529a..bcc5f7ce1f 100644
> > > > --- a/meta/conf/distro/include/tcmode-default.inc
> > > > +++ b/meta/conf/distro/include/tcmode-default.inc
> > > > @@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/gettext ??= "gettext"
> > > >
> > > > GCCVERSION ?= "12.%"
> > > > SDKGCCVERSION ?= "${GCCVERSION}"
> > > > -BINUVERSION ?= "2.39%"
> > > > +BINUVERSION ?= "2.40%"
> > > > GDBVERSION ?= "12.%"
> > > > GLIBCVERSION ?= "2.37"
> > > > LINUXLIBCVERSION ?= "6.1%"
> > >
> > > Applying this patch on an oe-core repository fails with 'git am':
> > >
> > > error: sha1 information is lacking or useless
> > > (meta/conf/distro/include/tcmode-default.inc).
> > > error: could not build fake ancestor
> > > Patch failed at 0001 binutils: Upgrade to 2.40 release
> > >
> > > And also with 'git apply'
> > >
> > > error: patch failed: meta/conf/distro/include/tcmode-default.inc:18
> > > error: meta/conf/distro/include/tcmode-default.inc: patch does not apply
> >
> > It might be due to glibc 2.37 upgrade which I have in my local tree
> > staged as well.
> > you might edit it locally. If you want I can push it to a dedicated branch
>
> Hm, maybe. I will try with your v3 I guess. :)
>
> Not a big problem so far, but an annoyance.
>
> --
> Luca Ceresoli, Bootlin
> Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
> https://bootlin.com
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#176176):
https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/176176
Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/96371613/21656
Group Owner: openembedded-core+ow...@lists.openembedded.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [OE-core] [PATCH v2 1/3] binutils: Upgrade to 2.40 release
Hi Khem,
On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 08:52:09 -0800
"Khem Raj" wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 1:44 AM Luca Ceresoli
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Khem,
> >
> > On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 20:27:22 -0800
> > "Khem Raj" wrote:
> >
> > > Signed-off-by: Khem Raj
This version is failing too:
https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/typhoon/#/builders/65/builds/6592/steps/14/logs/stdio
https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/typhoon/#/builders/122/builds/2263/steps/12/logs/stdio
https://autobuilder.yoctoproject.org/typhoon/#/builders/42/builds/6521/steps/14/logs/stdio
...
> > > diff --git a/meta/conf/distro/include/tcmode-default.inc
b/meta/conf/distro/include/tcmode-default.inc
> > > index 4d4929529a..bcc5f7ce1f 100644
> > > --- a/meta/conf/distro/include/tcmode-default.inc
> > > +++ b/meta/conf/distro/include/tcmode-default.inc
> > > @@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/gettext ??= "gettext"
> > >
> > > GCCVERSION ?= "12.%"
> > > SDKGCCVERSION ?= "${GCCVERSION}"
> > > -BINUVERSION ?= "2.39%"
> > > +BINUVERSION ?= "2.40%"
> > > GDBVERSION ?= "12.%"
> > > GLIBCVERSION ?= "2.37"
> > > LINUXLIBCVERSION ?= "6.1%"
> >
> > Applying this patch on an oe-core repository fails with 'git am':
> >
> > error: sha1 information is lacking or useless
> > (meta/conf/distro/include/tcmode-default.inc).
> > error: could not build fake ancestor
> > Patch failed at 0001 binutils: Upgrade to 2.40 release
> >
> > And also with 'git apply'
> >
> > error: patch failed: meta/conf/distro/include/tcmode-default.inc:18
> > error: meta/conf/distro/include/tcmode-default.inc: patch does not apply
>
> It might be due to glibc 2.37 upgrade which I have in my local tree
> staged as well.
> you might edit it locally. If you want I can push it to a dedicated branch
Hm, maybe. I will try with your v3 I guess. :)
Not a big problem so far, but an annoyance.
--
Luca Ceresoli, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#176166):
https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/176166
Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/96371613/21656
Group Owner: openembedded-core+ow...@lists.openembedded.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub
[arch...@mail-archive.com]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [OE-core] [PATCH v2 1/3] binutils: Upgrade to 2.40 release
On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 9:25 AM Jeff Law wrote: > > > On 1/18/23 21:27, Khem Raj wrote: > > Signed-off-by: Khem Raj > > --- > > v1 -> v2: > > - Fix build on mingw > > - Backport fix to build with --disable-gdb > [ ... ] > Note I think this is going to run afoul of grub2 mkimage. > Yes I am seeing that in local builds for both rv32 and rv64 > In binutils-2.40 the assembler for risc-v was changed to use CALL_PLT > relocations rather than CALL relocations. grub2 does not handle > CALL_PLT relocations which in turn will cause a failure when > grub2-mkimage is used on risc-v. > > As far as I can tell, the assembler change literally just changes the > relocation number, they are otherwise treated the same. So I think > grub2 can be fixed by just treating R_RISCV_CALL_PLT just like > R_RISCV_CALL in kern/riscv/dl.c. I will try this and let you know > > Nelson, can you confirm that all your assembler change did was change > the relocation used in the resultant object? > > Jeff > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#176161): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/176161 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/96371613/21656 Group Owner: openembedded-core+ow...@lists.openembedded.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [OE-core] [PATCH v2 1/3] binutils: Upgrade to 2.40 release
On 1/18/23 21:27, Khem Raj wrote: Signed-off-by: Khem Raj --- v1 -> v2: - Fix build on mingw - Backport fix to build with --disable-gdb [ ... ] Note I think this is going to run afoul of grub2 mkimage. In binutils-2.40 the assembler for risc-v was changed to use CALL_PLT relocations rather than CALL relocations. grub2 does not handle CALL_PLT relocations which in turn will cause a failure when grub2-mkimage is used on risc-v. As far as I can tell, the assembler change literally just changes the relocation number, they are otherwise treated the same. So I think grub2 can be fixed by just treating R_RISCV_CALL_PLT just like R_RISCV_CALL in kern/riscv/dl.c. Nelson, can you confirm that all your assembler change did was change the relocation used in the resultant object? Jeff -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#176155): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/176155 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/96371613/21656 Group Owner: openembedded-core+ow...@lists.openembedded.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Re: [OE-core] [PATCH v2 1/3] binutils: Upgrade to 2.40 release
On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 1:44 AM Luca Ceresoli wrote:
>
> Hi Khem,
>
> On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 20:27:22 -0800
> "Khem Raj" wrote:
>
> > Signed-off-by: Khem Raj
> > ---
> > v1 -> v2:
> > - Fix build on mingw
> > - Backport fix to build with --disable-gdb
> >
> > meta/conf/distro/include/tcmode-default.inc | 2 +-
> > .../{binutils-2.39.inc => binutils-2.40.inc} |22 +-
> > 39.bb => binutils-cross-canadian_2.40.bb} | 0
> > ...39.bb => binutils-cross-testsuite_2.40.bb} | 0
> > ...s-cross_2.39.bb => binutils-cross_2.40.bb} | 0
> > ...ssdk_2.39.bb => binutils-crosssdk_2.40.bb} | 0
> > ...s-crosssdk-Generate-relocatable-SDKs.patch |10 +-
> > ...o-not-generate-linker-script-directo.patch | 4 +-
> > ...dk-Search-for-alternative-ld.so.conf.patch |18 +-
> > ...004-Point-scripts-location-to-libdir.patch |10 +-
> > ...stro-compiler-point-to-the-wrong-ins.patch | 4 +-
> > ...-system-directories-when-cross-linki.patch |44 +-
> > ...ect-assembling-for-ppc-wait-mnemonic.patch | 8 +-
> > .../binutils/0008-Use-libtool-2.4.patch | 19254 ++--
> > ...h-in-libtool-when-sysroot-is-enabled.patch | 2 +-
> > .../0010-sync-with-OE-libtool-changes.patch | 2 +-
> > ...or-clang-before-checking-gcc-version.patch |10 +-
> > ...-RPATH-entry-if-LD_RUN_PATH-is-not-e.patch | 4 +-
> > .../binutils/0013-CVE-2022-38533.patch|36 -
> > ...sing-_Alignof-when-using-C11-or-newe.patch |48 +
> > .../binutils/0014-CVE-2022-38128-1.patch | 350 -
> > .../binutils/0014-CVE-2022-38128-2.patch | 536 -
> > .../binutils/0014-CVE-2022-38128-3.patch |95 -
> > ...-dependencies-on-gmp-and-mpfr-when-g.patch |56 +
> > .../binutils/0015-CVE-2022-4285.patch |37 -
> > ...-pe-dll.o-entry-deom-targ_extra_ofil.patch |41 +
> > .../{binutils_2.39.bb => binutils_2.40.bb}| 0
> > 27 files changed, 11820 insertions(+), 8773 deletions(-)
> > rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.39.inc =>
> > binutils-2.40.inc} (71%)
> > rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-cross-canadian_2.39.bb =>
> > binutils-cross-canadian_2.40.bb} (100%)
> > rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-cross-testsuite_2.39.bb =>
> > binutils-cross-testsuite_2.40.bb} (100%)
> > rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-cross_2.39.bb =>
> > binutils-cross_2.40.bb} (100%)
> > rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-crosssdk_2.39.bb =>
> > binutils-crosssdk_2.40.bb} (100%)
> > delete mode 100644
> > meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils/0013-CVE-2022-38533.patch
> > create mode 100644
> > meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils/0013-Define-alignof-using-_Alignof-when-using-C11-or-newe.patch
> > delete mode 100644
> > meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils/0014-CVE-2022-38128-1.patch
> > delete mode 100644
> > meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils/0014-CVE-2022-38128-2.patch
> > delete mode 100644
> > meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils/0014-CVE-2022-38128-3.patch
> > create mode 100644
> > meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils/0014-configure-remove-dependencies-on-gmp-and-mpfr-when-g.patch
> > delete mode 100644
> > meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils/0015-CVE-2022-4285.patch
> > create mode 100644
> > meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils/0015-Remove-duplicate-pe-dll.o-entry-deom-targ_extra_ofil.patch
> > rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils_2.39.bb =>
> > binutils_2.40.bb} (100%)
> >
> > diff --git a/meta/conf/distro/include/tcmode-default.inc
> > b/meta/conf/distro/include/tcmode-default.inc
> > index 4d4929529a..bcc5f7ce1f 100644
> > --- a/meta/conf/distro/include/tcmode-default.inc
> > +++ b/meta/conf/distro/include/tcmode-default.inc
> > @@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/gettext ??= "gettext"
> >
> > GCCVERSION ?= "12.%"
> > SDKGCCVERSION ?= "${GCCVERSION}"
> > -BINUVERSION ?= "2.39%"
> > +BINUVERSION ?= "2.40%"
> > GDBVERSION ?= "12.%"
> > GLIBCVERSION ?= "2.37"
> > LINUXLIBCVERSION ?= "6.1%"
>
> Applying this patch on an oe-core repository fails with 'git am':
>
> error: sha1 information is lacking or useless
> (meta/conf/distro/include/tcmode-default.inc).
> error: could not build fake ancestor
> Patch failed at 0001 binutils: Upgrade to 2.40 release
>
> And also with 'git apply'
>
> error: patch failed: meta/conf/distro/include/tcmode-default.inc:18
> error: meta/conf/distro/include/tcmode-default.inc: patch does not apply
It might be due to glibc 2.37 upgrade which I have in my local tree
staged as well.
you might edit it locally. If you want I can push it to a dedicated branch
>
> I noticed you prepared the patch in a poky repository, so I did apply
> it there, re-extracted it via 'git format-patch' and the resulting
> patch applied perfectly on my oe-core. This happened with your v1 as
> well a couple days ago.
>
> I don't understand the root cause and definitely there are no recent
> commits that
Re: [OE-core] [PATCH v2 1/3] binutils: Upgrade to 2.40 release
Hi Khem,
On Wed, 18 Jan 2023 20:27:22 -0800
"Khem Raj" wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Khem Raj
> ---
> v1 -> v2:
> - Fix build on mingw
> - Backport fix to build with --disable-gdb
>
> meta/conf/distro/include/tcmode-default.inc | 2 +-
> .../{binutils-2.39.inc => binutils-2.40.inc} |22 +-
> 39.bb => binutils-cross-canadian_2.40.bb} | 0
> ...39.bb => binutils-cross-testsuite_2.40.bb} | 0
> ...s-cross_2.39.bb => binutils-cross_2.40.bb} | 0
> ...ssdk_2.39.bb => binutils-crosssdk_2.40.bb} | 0
> ...s-crosssdk-Generate-relocatable-SDKs.patch |10 +-
> ...o-not-generate-linker-script-directo.patch | 4 +-
> ...dk-Search-for-alternative-ld.so.conf.patch |18 +-
> ...004-Point-scripts-location-to-libdir.patch |10 +-
> ...stro-compiler-point-to-the-wrong-ins.patch | 4 +-
> ...-system-directories-when-cross-linki.patch |44 +-
> ...ect-assembling-for-ppc-wait-mnemonic.patch | 8 +-
> .../binutils/0008-Use-libtool-2.4.patch | 19254 ++--
> ...h-in-libtool-when-sysroot-is-enabled.patch | 2 +-
> .../0010-sync-with-OE-libtool-changes.patch | 2 +-
> ...or-clang-before-checking-gcc-version.patch |10 +-
> ...-RPATH-entry-if-LD_RUN_PATH-is-not-e.patch | 4 +-
> .../binutils/0013-CVE-2022-38533.patch|36 -
> ...sing-_Alignof-when-using-C11-or-newe.patch |48 +
> .../binutils/0014-CVE-2022-38128-1.patch | 350 -
> .../binutils/0014-CVE-2022-38128-2.patch | 536 -
> .../binutils/0014-CVE-2022-38128-3.patch |95 -
> ...-dependencies-on-gmp-and-mpfr-when-g.patch |56 +
> .../binutils/0015-CVE-2022-4285.patch |37 -
> ...-pe-dll.o-entry-deom-targ_extra_ofil.patch |41 +
> .../{binutils_2.39.bb => binutils_2.40.bb}| 0
> 27 files changed, 11820 insertions(+), 8773 deletions(-)
> rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-2.39.inc =>
> binutils-2.40.inc} (71%)
> rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-cross-canadian_2.39.bb =>
> binutils-cross-canadian_2.40.bb} (100%)
> rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-cross-testsuite_2.39.bb =>
> binutils-cross-testsuite_2.40.bb} (100%)
> rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-cross_2.39.bb =>
> binutils-cross_2.40.bb} (100%)
> rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils-crosssdk_2.39.bb =>
> binutils-crosssdk_2.40.bb} (100%)
> delete mode 100644
> meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils/0013-CVE-2022-38533.patch
> create mode 100644
> meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils/0013-Define-alignof-using-_Alignof-when-using-C11-or-newe.patch
> delete mode 100644
> meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils/0014-CVE-2022-38128-1.patch
> delete mode 100644
> meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils/0014-CVE-2022-38128-2.patch
> delete mode 100644
> meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils/0014-CVE-2022-38128-3.patch
> create mode 100644
> meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils/0014-configure-remove-dependencies-on-gmp-and-mpfr-when-g.patch
> delete mode 100644
> meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils/0015-CVE-2022-4285.patch
> create mode 100644
> meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/binutils/0015-Remove-duplicate-pe-dll.o-entry-deom-targ_extra_ofil.patch
> rename meta/recipes-devtools/binutils/{binutils_2.39.bb => binutils_2.40.bb}
> (100%)
>
> diff --git a/meta/conf/distro/include/tcmode-default.inc
> b/meta/conf/distro/include/tcmode-default.inc
> index 4d4929529a..bcc5f7ce1f 100644
> --- a/meta/conf/distro/include/tcmode-default.inc
> +++ b/meta/conf/distro/include/tcmode-default.inc
> @@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/gettext ??= "gettext"
>
> GCCVERSION ?= "12.%"
> SDKGCCVERSION ?= "${GCCVERSION}"
> -BINUVERSION ?= "2.39%"
> +BINUVERSION ?= "2.40%"
> GDBVERSION ?= "12.%"
> GLIBCVERSION ?= "2.37"
> LINUXLIBCVERSION ?= "6.1%"
Applying this patch on an oe-core repository fails with 'git am':
error: sha1 information is lacking or useless
(meta/conf/distro/include/tcmode-default.inc).
error: could not build fake ancestor
Patch failed at 0001 binutils: Upgrade to 2.40 release
And also with 'git apply'
error: patch failed: meta/conf/distro/include/tcmode-default.inc:18
error: meta/conf/distro/include/tcmode-default.inc: patch does not apply
I noticed you prepared the patch in a poky repository, so I did apply
it there, re-extracted it via 'git format-patch' and the resulting
patch applied perfectly on my oe-core. This happened with your v1 as
well a couple days ago.
I don't understand the root cause and definitely there are no recent
commits that create conflicts. However I'm wondering whether you could
move to working on actual oe-core instead of poky. It would certainly
help me.
Kind regards,
Luca
--
Luca Ceresoli, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#176131):
