I've tried 22362,22380,22382,22388 from fresh SVN checkouts and all 4 of them
worked. Before I even tried a `make dirclean' before rebuilding. I also tried
manually deleting: `rm -rf bin build_dir staging_dir' ...
I must have had something stale in my tree to cause this.. what I am not sure.
I agree, more and more commercial users are using OpenWrt too and these
users are very interested in this information.
I've been thinking for some time now on how we can generate an overview
of the licenses of each package that is selected.
Maybe we can capture it as part of each Package
The init.d script for netatalk is called afpd, the same as the binary daemon.
The stop() function of the init.d actually kills itself, along with the daemon
and the killall of cnid_metad never completes. The afpd daemon writes a pid
file and can be terminated using the pid in the pidfile
ralph.hem...@lantiq.com wrote:
... I would appreciate this solution.
This makes it much more easy for us to create free SDK's.
By default the Package License should be GPL. Only non GPL packages will
add the additional License information to their feeds Makefiles ?
Just to be clear, the GPL
ralph.hem...@lantiq.com wrote:
... I would appreciate this solution.
This makes it much more easy for us to create free SDK's.
By default the Package License should be GPL. Only non GPL packages will
add the additional License information to their feeds Makefiles ?
Just to be clear, the GPL
Le Mon, 26 Jul 2010 07:10:25 -0700,
Jason Self ja...@librewrt.org a écrit :
ralph.hem...@lantiq.com wrote:
... I would appreciate this solution.
This makes it much more easy for us to create free SDK's.
By default the Package License should be GPL. Only non GPL packages
will add the
Hi Jason
Just to be clear, the GPL is not the only free software license. There
are
many, some of which have been reviewed at [1].
Just because something doesn't use the GPL, it doesn't automatically
follow that it's not free software. That's decided on whether the user
has
four specific
Hi,
Le lundi 26 juillet 2010 à 04:20 -0600, Joseph Roback a écrit :
I've tried 22362,22380,22382,22388 from fresh SVN checkouts and all 4
of them worked. Before I even tried a `make dirclean' before
rebuilding. I also tried manually deleting: `rm -rf bin build_dir
staging_dir' ...
I must
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 17:41:25 +0200, Benjamin Cama wrote:
Hi,
Le lundi 26 juillet 2010 à 04:20 -0600, Joseph Roback a écrit :
I've tried 22362,22380,22382,22388 from fresh SVN checkouts and all 4
of them worked. Before I even tried a `make dirclean' before
rebuilding. I also tried manually
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 16:13:32 +, Jim Henderson wrote:
I've tracked it down to build 22385 - 22384 (which has the last commit
at 22383) builds, 22385 doesn't for me.
Really strange, I backed down to 22383 and now it won't build that one
either.
Jim
--
Jim Henderson
Please keep on-topic
Le lundi 26 juillet 2010 à 16:13 +, Jim Henderson a écrit :
I've tracked it down to build 22385 - 22384 (which has the last commit at
22383) builds, 22385 doesn't for me.
But you said earlier that a later revision (22388) works; so, why
bother ? Furthermore, these changesets don't seem to
On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 00:37:13 +0200, Benjamin Cama wrote:
Le lundi 26 juillet 2010 à 16:13 +, Jim Henderson a écrit :
I've tracked it down to build 22385 - 22384 (which has the last commit
at 22383) builds, 22385 doesn't for me.
But you said earlier that a later revision (22388) works;
Le lundi 26 juillet 2010 à 23:11 +, Jim Henderson a écrit :
22388 didn't build for me. Joseph said a fresh checkout built from him.
Sorry, I thought it was you. But you may give it a try.
What process do you use to clean the offending package?
I just meant make package/foo/clean
On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 01:56:19 +0200, Benjamin Cama wrote:
I'll give that a try. It's a little confusing, though, having builds
that don't build, might it not be worth tracking down why and
addressing that root cause, if only to prevent a repeat of the
discussion?
Yes, it's confusing. Maybe
Hi,
I am still waiting for the response. Is that serial flash patch
accepted or there are some issues to be solved ?
Regards,
Tathagata
Tathagata Das wrote:
Hi,
Is that patch accepted or do I need to modify something ?
Regards,
Tathagata
Tathagata Das wrote:
Hi,
Attached patch is for
15 matches
Mail list logo
