On 12/05/2012 10:37 AM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
> On 12-12-05 01:34 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 12/05/2012 10:19 AM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>>> On 12-12-05 01:09 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
Some candid feedback from someone struggling with their build. They
specified a non-master branch
On 12-12-05 01:34 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
On 12/05/2012 10:19 AM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
On 12-12-05 01:09 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
Some candid feedback from someone struggling with their build. They
specified a non-master branch on the SRC_URI but had not added a
KBRANCH, so bitbake fetched ever
Some candid feedback from someone struggling with their build. They
specified a non-master branch on the SRC_URI but had not added a
KBRANCH, so bitbake fetched everything, but do_kernel_checkout checked
out the master branch.
This sort of disconnect between bitbake and the kern-tools is something
On Wed, 2012-12-05 at 16:27 +, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-12-05 at 10:06 -0600, Tom Zanussi wrote:
> > On Wed, 2012-12-05 at 15:48 +, Burton, Ross wrote:
> > > On 21 November 2012 21:32, Bruce Ashfield
> > > wrote:
> > > > atom-pc should probably be using the 3.4 kernel, but tha
On 12/05/2012 08:27 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-12-05 at 10:06 -0600, Tom Zanussi wrote:
>> On Wed, 2012-12-05 at 15:48 +, Burton, Ross wrote:
>>> On 21 November 2012 21:32, Bruce Ashfield
>>> wrote:
atom-pc should probably be using the 3.4 kernel, but that's a
questi
On Wed, 2012-12-05 at 15:48 +, Burton, Ross wrote:
> On 21 November 2012 21:32, Bruce Ashfield
> wrote:
> > atom-pc should probably be using the 3.4 kernel, but that's a
> > question for Darren/Tom/Nitin (so I've added them to the cc), since
> > there may be a reason (with respect to graphics
On 21 November 2012 21:32, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
> atom-pc should probably be using the 3.4 kernel, but that's a
> question for Darren/Tom/Nitin (so I've added them to the cc), since
> there may be a reason (with respect to graphics) as to why it is on
> 3.0.
Ping Darren/Tom/Nitin.
atom-pc is ce
