Re: Cannot do atom-pc build with meta-cedartrail
Brian Lloyd <blloyd@...>
I don't think it is just the intel ones. All the BSPs I've looked at
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
had this problem. The yocto-bsp also creates packages that add to the problem, as it's finished product adds files that end up in every BSP, and the final source selected is not dependent on the machine. (userpatches and userconfig). If you have filed a bug, I'll add to that, otherwise I was looking to add a bug discussing this myself. I just hadn't had time to see just how pervasive it is, but it is definitely pervasive enough that the problem should be mentioned in the project documentation and methods to avoid it given. Brian A. Lloyd
On Thu, 2012-09-27 at 17:10 +0300, Mihai Lindner wrote:
On 2012-09-27 14:31, Burton, Ross wrote:Hi,That's a bug alright.
|
|
Re: The term Package as used in the YP docs
Brian Lloyd <blloyd@...>
From the perspective of a new, easily confused and overwhelmed user, I
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
whole heartedly agree with the index entry. And now it makes sense why there is a PV to store version of a recipe.
On Fri, 2012-09-28 at 18:46 +0000, Rifenbark, Scott M wrote:
Rudolf,
|
|
[meta-baryon][PATCH 1/1] nfs-utils: workaround for nfsd regression in the 3.4 kernel
Kevin Strasser <kevin.strasser@...>
The version of nfsd used in 3.4 kernels tries to upcall the
new reboot-recovery daemon and gets stuck if it is not found. This causes client mounts to fail and prints the following error message during boot: "NFSD: starting 90-second grace period NFSD: Unable to end grace period: -110" If the directory "/var/lib/nfs/v4recovery" exists, nfsd will revert back to the old method. Signed-off-by: Kevin Strasser <kevin.strasser@...> --- .../nfs-utils/nfs-utils_1.2.3.bbappend | 8 ++++++++ 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) create mode 100644 recipes-connectivity/nfs-utils/nfs-utils_1.2.3.bbappend diff --git a/recipes-connectivity/nfs-utils/nfs-utils_1.2.3.bbappend b/recipes-connectivity/nfs-utils/nfs-utils_1.2.3.bbappend new file mode 100644 index 0000000..2c91a93 --- /dev/null +++ b/recipes-connectivity/nfs-utils/nfs-utils_1.2.3.bbappend @@ -0,0 +1,8 @@ +PR = "r5" + +# Work around linux 3.4 nfsd regression +do_install_prepend () { + install -d ${D}/var/lib/nfs/v4recovery +} + +FILES_${PN} += "/var/lib/nfs/v4recovery" -- 1.7.9.5
|
|
[meta-baryon][PATCH 0/1] nfs regression workaround
Kevin Strasser <kevin.strasser@...>
The new recovery mechanism used by nfs in 3.4 kernels is currently
failing when building baryon against poky 1.3_M3. This workaround causes nfs to revert back to the old recovery mechanism. The issue is discussed in more detail here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/6/11/243 The following changes since commit e4efadec4a1ded0a66fa67c7cca868b7a4b6221b: talloc: specify the version of LGPL and include the license text (2012-09-27 16:54:08 -0700) are available in the git repository at: git://git.yoctoproject.org/poky-contrib strassek/baryon-nfsd-regression http://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/poky-contrib/log/?h=strassek/baryon-nfsd-regression Kevin Strasser (1): nfs-utils: workaround for nfsd regression in the 3.4 kernel .../nfs-utils/nfs-utils_1.2.3.bbappend | 8 ++++++++ 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) create mode 100644 recipes-connectivity/nfs-utils/nfs-utils_1.2.3.bbappend -- 1.7.9.5
|
|
Re: The term Package as used in the YP docs
Trevor Woerner
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 2:34 PM, Paul Eggleton
<paul.eggleton@...> wrote: On Friday 28 September 2012 11:27:37 Rudolf Streif wrote:Not that it matters in the grand scheme of things, but I would be inUnfortunately, changing variables like P, PN, PV, PR etc.I'm not sure there's a huge amount to be gained by doing this when weighed favour of switching the variable names. Consistency is as consistency does; if there's any hope people can stop confusing "poky" for "yocto", "yocto" with "the yocto project", and "packages" for "recipes" then it needs to be pervasively correct. Provided the Yocto Project continues to grow, changes like this only get harder with time, and if the project gets bigger (i.e. more uses) the confusion only spreads further the longer it is left unchecked. In any case I applaud all the efforts to standardize the wording, especially in the documentation. As such I think it would be quite helpful to have the proposed historical note included. Hopefully, the sooner newcomers are aware of the issue, the less they're likely to trip up over it.
|
|
Re: The term Package as used in the YP docs
Tim Bird <tim.bird@...>
On 09/28/2012 11:44 AM, Rudolf Streif wrote:
I am not advocating changing the variable names. I know that this is a huge undertaking and prone to many problems. This probably one of the many legacy things people will have to live with and(I answered Scott privately by mistake - here's some feedback on-list) I'm in favor of mentioning the history somewhere, because the names do have a 'P' in them, and this is confusing otherwise. Overall, I think the new wording is worthwhile. -- Tim ============================= Tim Bird Architecture Group Chair, CE Workgroup of the Linux Foundation Senior Staff Engineer, Sony Network Entertainment =============================
|
|
Re: The term Package as used in the YP docs
Rifenbark, Scott M <scott.m.rifenbark@...>
Rudolf,
This is good feedback on the descriptions for the variable names Rudolf. I did try and clean things up there a bit.
Thanks, Scott
From: rstreif@... [mailto:rstreif@...]
On Behalf Of Rudolf Streif
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 11:45 AM To: Rifenbark, Scott M Cc: Paul Eggleton; yocto@... Subject: Re: [yocto] The term Package as used in the YP docs
I am not advocating changing the variable names. I know that this is a huge undertaking and prone to many problems. This probably one of the many legacy things people will have to live with and understand. In most cases recipe name and version exactly reflect the name and version of the package it is intended to build which to some extend mitigates the issue.
As far as the Terms section in the manuals is concerned, I see that you already changed the describing text for the variables. That's sufficient, I think.
:rjs On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Rifenbark, Scott M <scott.m.rifenbark@...> wrote: I have tried to weed out the ambiguous use of "package" for this upcoming version of the manual set. I don't think I would want to suggest changing any of the "P*" type variable names in the code. I agree with Paul here that the potential
for really messing things up out-weighs any other benefit. This is why I was trying to worm in a bit of history behind those names for the people that might struggle like me.
On Friday 28 September 2012 11:27:37 Rudolf Streif wrote: _______________________________________________
|
|
Re: The term Package as used in the YP docs
Rudolf Streif <rudolf.streif@...>
I am not advocating changing the variable names. I know that this is a huge undertaking and prone to many problems. This probably one of the many legacy things people will have to live with and understand. In most cases recipe name and version exactly reflect the name and version of the package it is intended to build which to some extend mitigates the issue.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
As far as the Terms section in the manuals is concerned, I see that you already changed the describing text for the variables. That's sufficient, I think. :rjs
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Rifenbark, Scott M <scott.m.rifenbark@...> wrote: I have tried to weed out the ambiguous use of "package" for this upcoming version of the manual set. I don't think I would want to suggest changing any of the "P*" type variable names in the code. I agree with Paul here that the potential for really messing things up out-weighs any other benefit. This is why I was trying to worm in a bit of history behind those names for the people that might struggle like me.
|
|
Re: The term Package as used in the YP docs
Rifenbark, Scott M <scott.m.rifenbark@...>
I have tried to weed out the ambiguous use of "package" for this upcoming version of the manual set. I don't think I would want to suggest changing any of the "P*" type variable names in the code. I agree with Paul here that the potential for really messing things up out-weighs any other benefit. This is why I was trying to worm in a bit of history behind those names for the people that might struggle like me.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Scott
-----Original Message-----
From: yocto-bounces@... [mailto:yocto-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Paul Eggleton Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 11:34 AM To: Rudolf Streif Cc: yocto@... Subject: Re: [yocto] The term Package as used in the YP docs On Friday 28 September 2012 11:27:37 Rudolf Streif wrote: +1No dispute there. It is somewhat confusing that YP and OE use the term 'package' synonymouslyThe thing is, we no longer do that - we've fixed a number of references in the documentation, help text and error messages for this release so that "recipe" is used when that's what we mean. If we've left any references that should be considered a bug. Unfortunately, changing variables like P, PN, PV, PR etc.I'm not sure there's a huge amount to be gained by doing this when weighed against the cost - it would certainly cause a massive amount of churn, with the potential for problems with layer interaction where one layer has done the big rename and another that bbappends recipes in the first hasn't. Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre _______________________________________________ yocto mailing list yocto@... https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
|
|
Re: The term Package as used in the YP docs
Paul Eggleton
On Friday 28 September 2012 11:27:37 Rudolf Streif wrote:
+1No dispute there. It is somewhat confusing that YP and OE use the term 'package' synonymouslyThe thing is, we no longer do that - we've fixed a number of references in the documentation, help text and error messages for this release so that "recipe" is used when that's what we mean. If we've left any references that should be considered a bug. Unfortunately, changing variables like P, PN, PV, PR etc.I'm not sure there's a huge amount to be gained by doing this when weighed against the cost - it would certainly cause a massive amount of churn, with the potential for problems with layer interaction where one layer has done the big rename and another that bbappends recipes in the first hasn't. Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre
|
|
Re: The term Package as used in the YP docs
Rudolf Streif <rudolf.streif@...>
+1
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I agree with Scott's definition. In the general Linux context a Package is a compilation of binaries, documentation, development files, etc. wrapped up in a format that can be used by a package management system to install it on a target system.
It is somewhat confusing that YP and OE use the term 'package' synonymously with 'recipe'. In most cases a package is the output of a recipe. I am all for making this more consistent at least to start with in the documentation. Unfortunately, changing variables like P, PN, PV, PR etc. may cause some pain. If a transition is what the broader community would like to achieve then a period where old and new variables can be used interchangeably (if possible) would be the way to go.
:rjs
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Rifenbark, Scott M <scott.m.rifenbark@...> wrote:
|
|
Re: The term Package as used in the YP docs
Rifenbark, Scott M <scott.m.rifenbark@...>
Paul,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Thanks for the clarification on the host packages. Maybe I should rewrite "The Packages" section to use that term. That seems best. I guess the reason I wanted to explain the weird variable names was because they caused me a lot of angst as I tried to figure things out. Maybe this is not so for others. I certainly don't need to provide a history lesson if I am the minority. Scott
-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Eggleton [mailto:paul.eggleton@...] Sent: Friday, September 28, 2012 11:23 AM To: Rifenbark, Scott M Cc: yocto@... Subject: Re: [yocto] The term Package as used in the YP docs Hi Scott, On Friday 28 September 2012 18:14:31 Rifenbark, Scott M wrote: * Package: In the context of the Yocto Project, this term refers toThe thing is, this is actually the same meaning, we're just talking about packages for your host distribution rather than packages for the custom distro you're building - the concept is the same. If we do need to clarify it I would suggest using the term "host package" or something very similar for packages to be installed as pre-requisites on the host system. Another point worth noting is that historically within the Yocto Project,I have to say, whilst this is an interesting point of history, I'm not sure anyone really needs to know this in the manual, particularly if we've replaced all historical use of the word "package" when we mean "recipe" (as I think we now have for this release). Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre
|
|
Re: The term Package as used in the YP docs
Paul Eggleton
Hi Scott,
On Friday 28 September 2012 18:14:31 Rifenbark, Scott M wrote: * Package: In the context of the Yocto Project, this term refers toThe thing is, this is actually the same meaning, we're just talking about packages for your host distribution rather than packages for the custom distro you're building - the concept is the same. If we do need to clarify it I would suggest using the term "host package" or something very similar for packages to be installed as pre-requisites on the host system. Another point worth noting is that historically within the Yocto Project,I have to say, whilst this is an interesting point of history, I'm not sure anyone really needs to know this in the manual, particularly if we've replaced all historical use of the word "package" when we mean "recipe" (as I think we now have for this release). Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre
|
|
The term Package as used in the YP docs
Rifenbark, Scott M <scott.m.rifenbark@...>
This post will have some strong opinions and responses. But, I want to throw this out as a re-write of the term “Package” as defined in the YP Development Manual’s “Terms” section. I gave this a shot based on my brief understanding and on some email that was tossed about a while back on the term. What I would like to ultimately come up with is a definition that works for the term as we want to use it in the YP docs and also as an explanation for some of our older variable names like PR, PV, and so forth that really refer to recipes. Please thrash over it….
· Package: In the context of the Yocto Project, this term refers to the packaged output from a baked recipe. A package is generally the compiled binaries produced from the recipe's sources. You ‘bake’ something by running it through BitBake. It is worth noting that the term "package" can, in general, have subtle meanings. For example, the packages refered to in the "The Packages" section are compiled binaries that when installed add functionality to your Linux distribution. Another point worth noting is that historically within the Yocto Project, recipes were referred to as packages - thus, the existence of several BitBake variables that are seemingly mis-named, (e.g.
Scott Rifenbark Intel Corporation Yocto Project Documentation 503.712.2702 503.341.0418 (cell)
|
|
Re: build failure on current
Evade Flow <evadeflow@...>
Just to bring this full circle: I finally got the CRC error on my Ubuntu
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
10.04 build server to go away by adding the following line to /etc/apt/sources.list: deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu lucid-updates main universe restricted and then executing: sudo apt-get install gzip to update gzip. Thanks, Paul, for all of your help in tracking this down...
On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 12:34 PM, Evade Flow <evadeflow@...> wrote:
Is it definitely tar that's the problem or gzip? ...Oh! Didn't even think of that. :-% Looks like it's gzip:
|
|
Re: build failure on current
Evade Flow <evadeflow@...>
Is it definitely tar that's the problem or gzip? ...Oh! Didn't even think of that. :-% Looks like it's gzip: evadeflow% gzip -d perl-5.14.2.tar.gz gzip: perl-5.14.2.tar.gz: invalid compressed data--crc error Nice find! I'll see about updating my gzip... On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@...> wrote: On Friday 28 September 2012 11:53:53 Evade Flow wrote:Is it definitely tar that's the problem or gzip? This would suggest gzip:My bad, sorry. (I really need to read more carefully.) Here's what I getErm... that *specific* bit prints nothing when pasted into a file andNo, but the rest of the script (the bit following the blank line that
|
|
Re: build failure on current
Paul Eggleton
On Friday 28 September 2012 11:53:53 Evade Flow wrote:
Is it definitely tar that's the problem or gzip? This would suggest gzip:My bad, sorry. (I really need to read more carefully.) Here's what I getErm... that *specific* bit prints nothing when pasted into a file andNo, but the rest of the script (the bit following the blank line that http://code.google.com/p/go/issues/detail?id=3443 Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre
|
|
Re: build failure on current
Evade Flow <evadeflow@...>
Erm... that *specific* bit prints nothing when pasted into a file and No, but the rest of the script (the bit following the blank line that you'veMy bad, sorry. (I really need to read more carefully.) Here's what I get when I add the missing lines: evadeflow% cat > temp.sh #!/bin/sh needtar=1 TARVERSION=`tar --version | head -n 1 | cut -d ' ' -f 4` float_test() { echo | awk 'END { exit ( !( '"$1"')); }' } # Tar version 1.24 and onwards handle overwriting symlinks correctly # but earlier versions do not; this needs to work properly for sstate float_test "$TARVERSION > 1.23" && needtar="0" echo $needtar evadeflow% chmod +x temp.sh evadeflow% ./temp.sh 1 So... it correctly determines that it needs to build tar, but... the built tar can't unpack the tarball from CPAN: evadeflow% wget http://www.cpan.org/src/5.0/perl-5.14.2.tar.gz --2012-09-28 11:46:13-- http://www.cpan.org/src/5.0/perl-5.14.2.tar.gz Resolving usaprox1.lightning.com... 10.102.184.7 Connecting to usaprox1.lightning.com|10.102.184.7|:8080... connected. Proxy request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Length: 15223598 (15M) [application/x-gzip] Saving to: `perl-5.14.2.tar.gz' 100%[================================================================>] 15,223,598 62.2M/s in 0.2s 2012-09-28 11:46:13 (62.2 MB/s) - `perl-5.14.2.tar.gz' saved [15223598/15223598] evadeflow% ./poky-git/build/tmp/sysroots/i686-linux/usr/bin/tar xf perl-5.14.2.tar.gz gzip: stdin: invalid compressed data--crc error ./poky-git/build/tmp/sysroots/i686-linux/usr/bin/tar: Child returned status 1 ./poky-git/build/tmp/sysroots/i686-linux/usr/bin/tar: Error is not recoverable: exiting now Weird. Anyway, I have a workaround, so it's not a big deal--especially given that Ubuntu 10.04 isn't officially supported. I'm happy to run any other tests you can think of to hunt down the cause of this (I've got a pretty fast build mchine now), but I totally understand if you've got bigger fish to fry at the moment... On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@...> wrote: On Friday 28 September 2012 11:13:22 Evade Flow wrote:No, but the rest of the script (the bit following the blank line that you've... could you put this into a file and run it and tellErm... that *specific* bit prints nothing when pasted into a file and
|
|
Re: build failure on current
Paul Eggleton
On Friday 28 September 2012 11:13:22 Evade Flow wrote:
No, but the rest of the script (the bit following the blank line that you've... could you put this into a file and run it and tellErm... that *specific* bit prints nothing when pasted into a file and omitted) is... I wanted to ensure that both the stripping out of the version and float_test were working. Cheers, Paul -- Paul Eggleton Intel Open Source Technology Centre
|
|
Re: build failure on current
Evade Flow <evadeflow@...>
To answer your questions...
Just to confirm, this is the same path you get if you run "cat pseudodone"Yessir. evadeflow% cat pseudodone /home/evadeflow/projects/poky-git/build/tmp/sysroots/i686-linux/usr/bin ... could you put this into a file and run it and tell meErm... that *specific* bit prints nothing when pasted into a file and executed. (Is it really supposed to?) evadeflow% cat > temp.sh #!/bin/sh needtar=1 TARVERSION=`tar --version | head -n 1 | cut -d ' ' -f 4` float_test() { echo | awk 'END { exit ( !( '"$1"')); }' } evadeflow% chmod +x temp.sh evadeflow% ./temp.sh evadeflow% ls -la /bin/sh lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 9 2010-08-13 05:08 /bin/sh -> /bin/bash evadeflow% tar --version | head -n 1 | cut -d ' ' -f 4 1.22 On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 10:34 AM, Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@...> wrote: On Friday 28 September 2012 10:16:27 Evade Flow wrote:Seems it definitely didn't build tar:Just to confirm, this is the same path you get if you run "cat pseudodone" in
|
|