never mind, just took a look at the commit which does exactly this. is it worth submitting a patch to tweak the few hard assignments? rday

i just now determined that that is exactly what is happening -- tried it with nanopb recipe from meta-oe, which contains: PNBLACKLIST[nanopb] = "Needs forward porting to use python3" switched that to

*where* did you set it to empty? in your local.conf?

i tested it ... at least i *thought* i tested it on a blacklisted recipe. i'll try it again, i guess i just misspelled something. rday

asking what is almost certainly a silly question, but as i'm poring over the wind river LTS 19 (aka "zeus") developer's guide, i know that WR adds a feature for un-blacklisting blacklisted recipes via

i suspected it was a WR thing, thanks. rday

currently poring over wind river docs and in release notes for WR LTS 19 (equivalent to YP 3.0), one of the notes for RCPL 7 for this release of WR states: "New support to deploy a platform project im

in aid of docs, currently poring over python-based recipes to document how one builds python recipe files, and noticed that numerous recipe files contain an assignment of the form: python3-smbus2_0.3.

trying to edit wiki, so trying to create acct at https://wiki.yoctoproject.org/wiki/Special:RequestAccount, and am getting: Error sending mail: Unknown error in PHP's mail() function. are there known

i submitted a patch yesterday. rday

it gets weirder ... the project i'm working with is based on morty so that variable *would* still be relevant, but even adding "Unlicense" to that variable didn't stop the offending recipe from still

that variable is gone: commit 64daaf29e2c12c8b587bafdebf9409433187ddf7 Author: Peter Kjellerstedt <peter.kjellerstedt@...> Date: Wed Dec 11 17:48:14 2019 +0100 licenses.conf: Remove the SRC_DISTR

as long as this requires only adding an Unlicense file to that directory, i can do that shortly. rday

On Wed, 13 May 2020, Quentin Schulz wrote: ... snip ... > If it's really widely used, maybe something to add to > openembedded-core/files/common-licenses/ ? So that you don't need > any of the suggest

colleague added a new recipe to a build, got a warning "The license listed Unlicense was not in the licenses collected for recipe python-filelock" and, sure enough, that source was released under the

colleague recently asked how to list the built-in/core modules that come with just installing python3, to know which additional python3 modules would require running around looking for actual recipes,

tryint to keep this short, i have a morty-based build wherein, every so often, one of a small number of recipes (ruby gems) has a build error, and this can almost always be resolved by just cleaning t

the only others i noticed were a pile of them in a single recipe file in meta-openembedded: meta-initramfs/recipes-kernel/kexec/kexec-tools-klibc_git.bb COMMON_CFLAGS += "-O2 -I${STAGING_DIR_HOST}${li

in aid of torturing myself, i'm poring over the bitbake manual and i recall the initial confusion i had when reading the section on overrides and appends, especially section 3.3.3 which turns things a

ah, i remember that exchange, but i was focused on the patching aspect of it, not the simpler copying aspect. rday