poking around my git clone and i notice a few references to what *seems* to be the older script for init'ing the build environment in the documentation directory: $ grep -rw poky-init-build-env * adt-

Adjust a couple doc files to reflect that the older poky-init-build-env command has been renamed to oe-init-build-env. Signed-off-by: Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@...> --- diff --git a/document

just perusing the documentation in my typically pedantic fashion and a couple questions about style. first, is the proper spelling "Bitbake" or "BitBake" since the doc source seems to bounce back and

Signed-off-by: Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@...>

Signed-off-by: Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@...> --- i'm hoping the following is correct -- it's just user help output so it's not fatal but it should still be correct. diff --git a/scripts/oe-

i thought as much, i'm going with that. not high on any list of priorities but while i'm perusing the docs, i might as well make notes of what can change, and submit patches for the more obvious stuff

and while you're at it, i was once lectured sternly that the proper spelling is "Git" when talking about the tool and "git" when referring to the actual command. never "GIT". at least that what i was

Fix missing prompt, missing "git" and break overly long command in two since it disappears off the page in the PDF output. Signed-off-by: Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@...> --- these fixes shoul

Fix some obvious typoes in a couple "opkg-cl" commands in the ADT manual, packages chapter. Signed-off-by: Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@...> --- i'm *hoping* i'm reading this correctly. and i'l

maybe i'm misreading something, but the yocto QS guide provides the sample command: $ bitbake -k poky-image-sato however, nothing provides that target. i can see the git log entry: commit 1947b1747818

currently, scripts/oe-setup-builddir lists one of the common targets as "core-image-sato", so certainly *something* is out of sync. rday

ok, that explains it but it doesn't defend it. IMHO, any single versioned tarball or repository checkout should always be internally consistent, and that includes embedded documentation. when i do a "

just so i'm doing this the right way, what is the appropriate way to report bitbake fetch errors? with a fully-updated git repo, i just ran: $ bitbake -c fetchall -k core-image-sato and got fetch erro

while the problem has since gone away, something strange happened yesterday i figured i'd share. as a quick test, wanted to build core-image-sato so started with: $ bitbake -c fetchall core-image-sato

sadly, i tossed the "bad" tarball, but i do recall that when i just tried to check the contents with "tar tvjf", it eventually reported unexpected EOF -- yes, i might have mentioned that earlier. :-P

Signed-off-by: Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@...> --- diff --git a/documentation/yocto-project-qs/yocto-project-qs.xml b/documentation/yocto-project-qs/yocto-project-qs.xml index 52f7391..c0ba20

Signed-off-by: Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@...> --- i *think* this is what the author had in mind. diff --git a/documentation/yocto-project-qs/yocto-project-qs.xml b/documentation/yocto-projec

(look on the bright side -- eventually, after many, many patches, i will have nothing left to whine about.) from quick start manual, i notice that all toolchain tarballs have "sdk" in the filename, wh

ah, of course. ok, then that sentence should simply be reworded to make it clear that it's not optional and root privilege is required. patch to follow shortly. rday

Signed-off-by: Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@...> --- i think i got them all, i didn't see any other references anywhere in the docs directory. does this look right? diff --git a/documentation/y