[OE-core] [PATCH 0/1] coreutils update

2013-03-24 Thread Marko Lindqvist
Problems that prevented using of previous upstream version of coreutils fixed in latest upstream release. The following changes since commit 41c0241a810f0a97ddc98a834e717645e0047958: tcl: Fix the location of the installed headers (2013-03-23 18:09:54 +) are available in the git repository

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 2/4] linux-firmware: Do not deploy license files in packages

2013-03-24 Thread Eric Bénard
Hi Otavio, Le Sat, 23 Mar 2013 17:30:58 -0300, Otavio Salvador ota...@ossystems.com.br a écrit : We don't ship license files with packages and firmware packages are no different; drop them. Signed-off-by: Otavio Salvador ota...@ossystems.com.br there may be a good reason to distribute the

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 2/4] linux-firmware: Do not deploy license files in packages

2013-03-24 Thread Otavio Salvador
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Eric Bénard e...@eukrea.com wrote: Hi Otavio, Le Sat, 23 Mar 2013 17:30:58 -0300, Otavio Salvador ota...@ossystems.com.br a écrit : We don't ship license files with packages and firmware packages are no different; drop them. Signed-off-by: Otavio Salvador

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 2/4] linux-firmware: Do not deploy license files in packages

2013-03-24 Thread John Weber
Showing my ignorance here, but is a manifest created with all of the packaged licenses? Is it possible for the developer to ship that if they see fit? I think what Otavio was trying to do was to keep /lib/firmware from being cluttered with license files. At least, that is the benefit as I

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 2/4] linux-firmware: Do not deploy license files in packages

2013-03-24 Thread Eric Bénard
Le Sun, 24 Mar 2013 11:55:09 -0500, John Weber rjohnwe...@gmail.com a écrit : Showing my ignorance here, but is a manifest created with all of the packaged licenses? Is it possible for the developer to ship that if they see fit? I think what Otavio was trying to do was to keep

[OE-core] [PATCH 2/2] gnupg: Added update-alternatives entry for gpgv

2013-03-24 Thread Paul Barker
Added update-alternatives entry linking '/usr/bin/gpgv' to 'gpgv2'. This is required to allow apt-get to verify a signed repository. Signed-off-by: Paul Barker p...@paulbarker.me.uk --- meta/recipes-support/gnupg/gnupg_2.0.19.bb |5 - 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff

[OE-core] Gnupg recipe fixes

2013-03-24 Thread Paul Barker
I'm setting up a signed apt repository of .deb packages built using OpenEmbedded and I've ran into an issue with apt-get on the target board not being able to find 'gpgv' to verify the signatures. This is installed as 'gpgv2' in the gnupg recipe. Therefore I've used update-alternatives to create

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] [RFC] Perl packages shouldn't be allarch

2013-03-24 Thread Jesse Zhang
Ping. Anyone has comments? jesse On 03/19/2013 10:07 AM, Jesse Zhang wrote: Hi, I recently found that perl packages are broken in multilib builds. On a lib32 image, everything including perl is lib32 and installs to /usr/lib. These perl packages are all arch, which is fine except that they

[OE-core] [PATCH 1/2] gnupg: Replace manual link with update-alternatives

2013-03-24 Thread Paul Barker
Removed manual creation of '/usr/bin/gpg' link to 'gpg2' and replaced with proper usage of update-alternatives. Signed-off-by: Paul Barker p...@paulbarker.me.uk --- meta/recipes-support/gnupg/gnupg_2.0.19.bb |9 + 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] [RFC] Perl packages shouldn't be allarch

2013-03-24 Thread Jesse Zhang
It's already checked in. Sorry for the noise.. jesse On 03/25/2013 10:03 AM, Jesse Zhang wrote: Ping. Anyone has comments? jesse On 03/19/2013 10:07 AM, Jesse Zhang wrote: Hi, I recently found that perl packages are broken in multilib builds. On a lib32 image, everything including