Re: [yocto] [OE-core] Patchwork and incoming patch testing

On Wed 2017-01-18 @ 07:05:58 AM, Paul Eggleton wrote: > This should give us a bit more visibility into > where patches are at in the process, although we are still working on a few > places where patch series status needs to be updated (e.g. when a patch goes > into testing). Is the testing

[yocto] Flatbuffers

Curious if anyone has ever built googles flatbuffers for embedded and whether or not they might share their recipe? Thanks, Terry -- ___ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto

Re: [yocto] [OE-core] [Openembedded-architecture] Patchwork and incoming patch testing

I was replying to the wrong mailing list. Sorry for the spam. :( On 01/18/2017 04:40 PM, Jose Lamego wrote: > > On 01/18/2017 08:52 AM, Leonardo Sandoval wrote: >> + Jose Lamego >> >> >> Jose is doing recent work on the patchwork UI, perhaps there are already >> bugs for the items you are

[yocto] [layerindex-web][PATCH 1/2] views.py: Redirect to recipe details for single results

From: Alex Franco When a recipe search returns only one result, clicking the single result at the results view is still required to view further recipe detail. This change automatically redirects to the recipe details view when the recipe search returns a

[yocto] [layerindex-web][PATCH 2/2] views.py: Consider layer name in recipe search

From: Alex Franco Recipe search cannot be narrowed to a specific layer, producing unnecessary results. This change allows including a layers name when searching for recipes to narrow the yielded results by adding a layer name to the simplesearch.getquery call

[yocto] [layerindex-web][PATCH 0/2] Improvements to recipe search

These changes improve recipe searches in the OpenEmbedded Layer Index by allowing the layer name to be include as parameter to search and automatically redirecting to the recipe details view when a single result is yielded. [YOCTO #6618] Alex Franco (2): views.py: Redirect to recipe details

Re: [yocto] Changing over to systemd (no dhcp)

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 7:10 AM, wrote: > We have a configuration for our embedded system which is working via SysV, > but we’re investigating moving over to systemd. > > Not sure if this is ‘wise’ – if anyone has technological arguments > for/against then I’d be

Re: [yocto] [Openembedded-architecture] Layer index enhancements

On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 23:02:00 Paul Eggleton wrote: > * We now pick up layer dependencies (and recommends) specified in the > layer.conf, but only if they match the layer name - we don't handle > collection names yet, so this won't currently work where the collection > name doesn't match the layer

Re: [yocto] [meta-raspberrypi][PATCH 0/2] Drop kernel versions 4.7 and 4.8

Andrei, On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 5:30 PM, Andrei Gherzan wrote: > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 05:24:05PM +0100, Leon Woestenberg wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Andrei Gherzan > wrote: > > > > > > > > Based we should only keep 4.4 and 4.10 (or 4.9).

Re: [yocto] [[PATCH][yocto-autobuilder] 1/2] buildsteps/CreateAutoConf.py: Add support for specify MACHINE by build prop

On 01/18/2017 12:13 PM, Joshua Lock wrote: > On Mon, 2017-01-16 at 10:25 -0600, Aníbal Limón wrote: >> Sometimes is a good idea to could specify a machine to build via a >> build >> property. > > Why's that? I can guess but the commit log should really tell me what > the motivation for the

Re: [yocto] [[PATCH][yocto-autobuilder] 1/2] buildsteps/CreateAutoConf.py: Add support for specify MACHINE by build prop

On Mon, 2017-01-16 at 10:25 -0600, Aníbal Limón wrote: > Sometimes is a good idea to could specify a machine to build via a > build > property. Why's that? I can guess but the commit log should really tell me what the motivation for the change is. > > Signed-off-by: Aníbal Limón

[yocto] [PATCH 1/2] linux-raspberrypi_4.4: Update to 4.4.43

Signed-off-by: Andrei Gherzan --- recipes-kernel/linux/linux-raspberrypi_4.4.bb | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-raspberrypi_4.4.bb b/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-raspberrypi_4.4.bb index 3317c02..0f78225 100644

Re: [yocto] [PATCH 2/2] linux-raspberrypi_4.9: Update to 4.9.4

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 06:34:02PM +0100, Andrei Gherzan wrote: > Signed-off-by: Andrei Gherzan > --- > recipes-kernel/linux/linux-raspberrypi_4.9.bb | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-raspberrypi_4.9.bb >

[yocto] [PATCH 2/2] linux-raspberrypi_4.9: Update to 4.9.4

Signed-off-by: Andrei Gherzan --- recipes-kernel/linux/linux-raspberrypi_4.9.bb | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-raspberrypi_4.9.bb b/recipes-kernel/linux/linux-raspberrypi_4.9.bb index 20f43aa..cffea1a 100644

Re: [yocto] [meta-raspberrypi][PATCH] gstreamer1.0-omx: Add 1.10x support

On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 01:28:46PM -0800, Khem Raj wrote: > On Thu, Dec 29, 2016 at 10:16 AM, Andrei Gherzan wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 11:59:21PM -0800, Khem Raj wrote: > >> Restructure the bbappends such that common portions > >> can be put in a common bbappend and

Re: [yocto] [meta-raspberrypi][PATCH v2] linux-raspberrypi-rt: add

On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 10:54:01PM -0500, Trevor Woerner wrote: > On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Paul Barker wrote: > > On Thu, 5 Jan 2017 15:16:19 -0500 > > Trevor Woerner wrote: > > > >> On Thu 2017-01-05 @ 07:33:38 PM, Paul Barker wrote: > >> > On

Re: [yocto] [meta-raspberrypi][PATCH 0/2] Drop kernel versions 4.7 and 4.8

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 05:24:05PM +0100, Leon Woestenberg wrote: > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Andrei Gherzan wrote: > > > > > Based we should only keep 4.4 and 4.10 (or 4.9). > > > > Ane comments before I proceed? :) > > > > > I think keeping 4.9 (Long Term Support

Re: [yocto] [meta-raspberrypi][PATCH 0/2] Drop kernel versions 4.7 and 4.8

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Andrei Gherzan wrote: > > Based we should only keep 4.4 and 4.10 (or 4.9). > > Ane comments before I proceed? :) > > I think keeping 4.9 (Long Term Support kernel) for sure. Regards, Leon. -- ___

Re: [yocto] [meta-raspberrypi][PATCH 0/2] Drop kernel versions 4.7 and 4.8

On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 07:26:55AM +, Paul Barker wrote: > As discussed recently on the list, we can just keep LTS versions now > that v4.9 is available. > > I'm sending these so anyone who still needs v4.7 or v4.8 can shout > 'stop!' before we remove them. > > Paul Barker (2): >

Re: [yocto] [meta-raspberrypi][PATCH 0/3] Kernel update and getVar cleanup

On Mon, Jan 02, 2017 at 01:20:10PM +, Paul Barker wrote: > These patches have been boot tested for both raspberrypi and raspberrypi3. > > The first patch in the series probably breaks things for the morty branch. I'm > also proposing we drop support for linux-raspberrypi v4.1 as it's currently

Re: [yocto] [meta-raspberrypi][PATCH 0/3] Kernel update and getVar cleanup

On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 07:15:23AM +, Paul Barker wrote: > On Mon, 2 Jan 2017 13:20:10 + > Paul Barker wrote: > > > These patches have been boot tested for both raspberrypi and raspberrypi3. > > > > The first patch in the series probably breaks things for the morty

Re: [yocto] [meta-raspberrypi][PATCH 0/2] Drop kernel versions 4.7 and 4.8

On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 03:12:51PM +, Paul Barker wrote: > On 16 January 2017 14:51:55 GMT+00:00, Gary Thomas wrote: > >On 2017-01-16 15:48, Gary Thomas wrote: > >> On 2017-01-16 08:26, Paul Barker wrote: > >>> As discussed recently on the list, we can just keep LTS

[yocto] Changing over to systemd (no dhcp)

We have a configuration for our embedded system which is working via SysV, but we're investigating moving over to systemd. Not sure if this is 'wise' - if anyone has technological arguments for/against then I'd be interested - but I wanted to investigate it anyway. I've modified local.conf

Re: [yocto] Pulseaudio: build issue

Hi Gowtham, On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 12:00:52PM +, Gowtham Pandi wrote: > >Hi All, > >I am using Raspberry Pi 3 model B. I am facing build issues while building >bitbake pulseaudio. > >Please find my configuration details: > >Yocto : Jethro branch >pulseaudio.inc RDEPENDS_pulseaudio-server +=

Re: [yocto] [Openembedded-architecture] Patchwork and incoming patch testing

+ Jose Lamego Jose is doing recent work on the patchwork UI, perhaps there are already bugs for the items you are asking. On 01/18/2017 02:40 AM, Jussi Kukkonen wrote: This looks great, thanks. On 17 January 2017 at 20:05, Paul Eggleton

[yocto] Pulseaudio: build issue

Hi All, I am using Raspberry Pi 3 model B. I am facing build issues while building bitbake pulseaudio. Please find my configuration details: Yocto : Jethro branch pulseaudio.inc RDEPENDS_pulseaudio-server += "alsa-plugins-pulseaudio-conf" we are using alsa-plugins_1.0.29.bb bitbake pulseaudio

Re: [yocto] Whats the better way to maintain the Yocto project for an embedded product - git submodules or repo or using Combo-layer

> -Original Message- > From: yocto-boun...@yoctoproject.org [mailto:yocto- > boun...@yoctoproject.org] On Behalf Of Paul Barker > Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 11:09 AM > To: yocto@yoctoproject.org; Eswaran Vinothkumar (BEG-PT/PJ-IOT1) > > Subject:

Re: [yocto] sstate-cache and native recipes

On 18 January 2017 at 09:51, Gary Thomas wrote: > How would one change the recipe to reflect that? Is there an > override that effectively says "not -native"? > do_install_class-target. Ross -- ___ yocto mailing list

Re: [yocto] sstate-cache and native recipes

On 18 January 2017 at 11:51, Gary Thomas wrote: > On 2017-01-18 10:35, Burton, Ross wrote: > >> >> On 18 January 2017 at 09:13, Gary Thomas g...@mlbassoc.com>> wrote: >> >> * glib-2.0-native depends on ${DISTRO_FEATURES} >> To me this seems silly

Re: [yocto] Whats the better way to maintain the Yocto project for an embedded product - git submodules or repo or using Combo-layer

On 18 January 2017 09:32:15 GMT+00:00, "Eswaran Vinothkumar (BEG-PT/PJ-IOT1)" wrote: >Hello Yocto community members, > >Currently I am working on the task of using Yocto to build customized >Embedded Linux distribution for an embedded product. I have created a

[yocto] Layer index enhancements

Hi all, We've done some work recently on the OE layer index [1] and I thought it might be useful to give a summary of what's been implemented: * Upgraded to Django 1.8. This was a bunch of work without much visible impact, however it does mean we are now on an LTS version of Django which is

Re: [yocto] sstate-cache and native recipes

On 2017-01-18 10:35, Burton, Ross wrote: On 18 January 2017 at 09:13, Gary Thomas > wrote: * glib-2.0-native depends on ${DISTRO_FEATURES} To me this seems silly as "native" should be "native" and not depend on any distribution

Re: [yocto] sstate-cache and native recipes

On 18 January 2017 at 09:13, Gary Thomas wrote: > * glib-2.0-native depends on ${DISTRO_FEATURES} > To me this seems silly as "native" should be "native" and > not depend on any distribution settings. Here's the code > that's causing it (in do_install) > > if [

[yocto] Whats the better way to maintain the Yocto project for an embedded product - git submodules or repo or using Combo-layer

Hello Yocto community members, Currently I am working on the task of using Yocto to build customized Embedded Linux distribution for an embedded product. I have created a new BSP layer for my project (meta-custommachine) and have successfully created barebox, Linux Kernel and root filesystem

Re: [yocto] sstate-cache and native recipes

On 2017-01-18 10:13, Gary Thomas wrote: I've been trying to understand (as was recently posted here by another user) why native recipes are not being well shared/reused by the sstate-cache mechanism. I have a build machine where I do lots of builds for various targets. I would think (hope!)

Re: [yocto] x86 testing

On 18 January 2017 at 07:02, Gary Thomas wrote: > It used to be that I could run qemu and it would pop up a separate > window that emulated a display+keyboard+mouse. That doesn't seem > to be the same now, or at least I don't see how to make it work. > Advice on this would be

Re: [yocto] x86 testing

On 18 January 2017 at 09:02, Gary Thomas wrote: > I'm trying to track down some recent changes in the X server > (using the latest Poky/Yocto master). I've had failures on > a number of the embedded targets I work with, so I thought > I'd give it a go on platforms with a

Re: [yocto] x86 testing

On Wed, 2017-01-18 at 08:02 +0100, Gary Thomas wrote: > I'm trying to track down some recent changes in the X server > (using the latest Poky/Yocto master). I've had failures on > a number of the embedded targets I work with, so I thought > I'd give it a go on platforms with a larger base - x86

[yocto] sstate-cache and native recipes

I've been trying to understand (as was recently posted here by another user) why native recipes are not being well shared/reused by the sstate-cache mechanism. I have a build machine where I do lots of builds for various targets. I would think (hope!) that xxx-native packages would be the same

Re: [yocto] [Openembedded-architecture] Patchwork and incoming patch testing

This looks great, thanks. On 17 January 2017 at 20:05, Paul Eggleton wrote: > In any event we are now finally in the > position where our patchwork instance can be relied upon to collect emails, > and the UI is much improved. This should give us a bit more