**** BEGIN LOGGING AT Sat Sep 29 02:59:56 2007
Sep 29 03:07:59 <stephane_> Hello,
Sep 29 11:40:50 <ABC|dOC> hi all
Sep 29 11:41:13 <ertwroc> hi
Sep 29 11:42:48 <ABC|dOC> i'd like to use autofs on spitz
Sep 29 11:42:51 <ABC|dOC> anyway to do it ?
Sep 29 15:24:59 * xota re!
Sep 29 17:19:51 <DaedalusX> hi all
Sep 29 17:52:11 <ABC|dOC> hi there
Sep 29 17:54:31 <ABC|dOC> i use mplayer iwmmx on spitz, but quality is quiet bad
Sep 29 17:54:53 <ABC|dOC> is there anyway to have nice quality, as with the -vo x11 provides ?
Sep 29 18:02:03 <ABC|dOC> what program should i use to play http video stream (or rtsp, or anyother)
Sep 29 18:07:48 <dcordes> hey ABC|dOC 
Sep 29 18:07:51 <dcordes> mplayer for streaming?
Sep 29 18:12:49 <ABC|dOC> why not
Sep 29 18:12:55 <ABC|dOC> i try, but it seems to not work
Sep 29 18:13:14 <ABC|dOC> i've a server streaming a video in http access
Sep 29 18:13:28 <ABC|dOC> i play from another with vlc http://server:8080
Sep 29 18:13:39 <ABC|dOC> but from zaurus, it doesn't seems to work
Sep 29 18:14:44 <ABC|dOC> but from my pc, i can't play with mplayer :/
Sep 29 18:14:49 <ABC|dOC> trying to fix it before
Sep 29 18:18:20 <ABC|dOC> hmm i can now do mplayer rtsp://server:8080/test.sdp from my pc
Sep 29 18:18:51 <ABC|dOC> but from zaurus, i've : server returned 404 : not found
Sep 29 18:24:05 <ABC|dOC> any rtsp stream i try to play with mplayer give me 404 error
Sep 29 18:24:13 <ABC|dOC> where should i find a vlc ?
Sep 29 21:32:24 <Darth_Wader> hmm, anyone had such issue or should i report bug? http://pastebin.ca/720020   -- current OE/angstrom 2008.1
Sep 29 21:36:53 <koen> psokolovsky: opie is not supported in angstrom, please don't put opie images in the download area
Sep 29 21:37:22 <Darth_Wader> koen: if you don`t want them - don`t download them
Sep 29 21:37:41 <koen> Darth_Wader: STFU
Sep 29 21:37:47 <Darth_Wader> no u
Sep 29 21:39:01 <psokolovsky> koen: strange. isn't there was official angstrom-devel RFC with proposed procedure, to which you, as Angstrom maintainer, responded that the prerequisite for OPIE to lose "unsupported" status, device mentors should really start to upload its images, collect feedback from users, etc.
Sep 29 21:39:25 <psokolovsky> koen|away: what I'm doing now is exactly execution of that decision
Sep 29 21:39:44 <koen> did I really say that?
Sep 29 21:39:57 <psokolovsky> koen: yep, something like that
Sep 29 21:40:17 <psokolovsky> koen: originally, you said that what's required for OPIE support is 2 maintainers, that's all, btw
Sep 29 21:40:47 <koen> and then one of them tried to hijack the angstrom site, I remember that
Sep 29 21:41:47 <psokolovsky> koen: there're 2 maintainers now: polyonymous and me.
Sep 29 21:42:56 <koen> please don't put the images in the main download area, but in a dir clearly labeled as unsupported for now
Sep 29 21:42:58 <psokolovsky> koen: also, that "hijack project site" talk reminds something? you know that guy, don't you? was your argument really about something organizational or of 2 similar attitudes?
Sep 29 21:43:12 <psokolovsky> koen: ok, sounds good. thanks
Sep 29 21:43:34 <polyonymous-note> I don't think tagging dirs as unsupported is really a problem if it pleases koen.
Sep 29 21:43:41 <polyonymous-note> btw, hi
Sep 29 21:44:06 <psokolovsky> polyonymous-note: hi. yes, should be good.
Sep 29 21:45:13 <polyonymous-note> psokolovsky, btw, I didn't really like the idea of renaming qmake-base, because it somewhat breaks oe-wide standards.
Sep 29 21:45:33 <psokolovsky> polyonymous-note: what you mean exactly?
Sep 29 21:45:45 <polyonymous-note> by renaming or by standdards?
Sep 29 21:45:54 <psokolovsky> by renaming to start with
Sep 29 21:46:08 <polyonymous-note> hmm.. lemme see the log
Sep 29 21:46:53 <psokolovsky> koen: would http://www.angstrom-distribution.org/unstable/images-unsupported/ be good?
Sep 29 21:46:55 <polyonymous-note> mtn is painfully slow...
Sep 29 21:47:18 <polyonymous-note> psokolovsky, 371291ba5b2d3d86534d42fdb26b7e29b9e18bff
Sep 29 21:47:18 <koen> I'd go for unsupported-images
Sep 29 21:47:28 <psokolovsky> koen: ok
Sep 29 21:47:47 <psokolovsky> polyonymous: you mean a commit I made like half-month ago?
Sep 29 21:48:00 <polyonymous-note> psokolovsky, something like that :)
Sep 29 21:48:47 <psokolovsky> polyonymous-note: that commit message should make it clear that original naming broke *bitbake* *requirements*, so I'm not sure about what conventions you talk here.
Sep 29 21:49:09 <polyonymous-note> *bitbake* requirement?
Sep 29 21:49:59 <psokolovsky> polyonymous-note: yes, old name simply didn't work, that's it
Sep 29 21:50:40 <polyonymous-note> that's not a "bitbake requirement", and of course I'm aware of it. I've talked to zecke about it and filed a fix (done the way we agreed upon with zecke) shortly before your commit
Sep 29 21:50:50 <polyonymous-note> http://bugs.openembedded.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2958
Sep 29 21:51:34 <polyonymous-note> actually, I DO think that qmake_base is a better choice, but now we have some -bases and some _bases and that sucks.
Sep 29 21:52:03 <psokolovsky> polyonymous-note: if it's right fix, test, tets again, and commit please. don't let stuff be broken for weeks until I come back from vacation to discover it ;-)
Sep 29 21:52:22 <polyonymous-note> psokolovsky, I can't commit fix to bitbake.
Sep 29 21:52:30 <psokolovsky> polyonymous-note: bitbake doesn't grok -'s in var/func names
Sep 29 21:52:55 <psokolovsky> polyonymous-note: then, we apparently cleared the situation, right?
Sep 29 21:53:06 <polyonymous-note> psokolovsky, and again - the bug and the fix appeared like a day before you were back. Wish you raised an issue before fixing it, but I really do not propose reversing it.
Sep 29 21:53:41 <polyonymous-note> Well, the situation is clear, as it doesn't require any further actions on our part :)
Sep 29 21:55:28 <polyonymous-note> psokolovsky, it's just that I don't like that my fix was a waste of time (not a long, but still). I'm just whining, that's it :)
Sep 29 21:55:36 <psokolovsky> polyonymous-note: do you have a qvga to test opie on?
Sep 29 21:56:34 <polyonymous-note> poor me, qvga is how much? :)
Sep 29 21:56:35 <psokolovsky> polyonymous-note: I don't think it's waste of time, you just should ping RP harder to apply it ;-)
Sep 29 21:56:43 <psokolovsky> polyonymous-note: 320x240
Sep 29 21:56:48 <polyonymous-note> psokolovsky, yeah, but applying it is somewhat pointless now :)
Sep 29 21:57:08 <polyonymous-note> hmm... only if qemu can do that :)
Sep 29 21:57:18 <psokolovsky> polyonymous-note: not really, as my fix now appears to be a mere workaround.
Sep 29 21:57:54 <psokolovsky> polyonymous-note: if we won't fix such bugs in bitbake, which are many, we'll always hit them with steady frequency ;-\
Sep 29 21:58:45 <polyonymous-note> psokolovsky, well, the worst part is that both fixes are workarounds and have downside - one breaks established conventions, the other... well the other is a workaround :)
Sep 29 21:59:14 <polyonymous-note> well, they can be fixed by putting a _requirement_ on class names.
Sep 29 22:00:30 <polyonymous-note> and, speaking of pinging RP, he left it up to zecke to commit, because zecke is more familiar with that part of code (and is involved with this issue, anyway) and maybe zecke is waiting for RP to commit the fix.
Sep 29 22:00:36 <psokolovsky> yep, and one obvious is that what's outside (filename), that's inside. adding more complex rules is confusing. anyway, that's RP's and zecke's area
Sep 29 22:01:10 <RP> I've kind of been hoping zecke will sort it out ;-)
Sep 29 22:01:29 <polyonymous-note> RP, yup, that's what I meant.
Sep 29 22:02:07 <polyonymous-note> psokolovsky, maybe if you didn't fix it by renaming we'd be more persistent and fix would make it to bitbake by now :))
Sep 29 22:02:55 <psokolovsky> polyonymous-note: cool
Sep 29 22:03:02 <psokolovsky> polyonymous-note: what about qvga?
Sep 29 22:03:21 <polyonymous-note> psokolovsky, I told you, I have Z and qemu. If qemu does qvga, then that's what I have for testing it.
Sep 29 22:04:35 <psokolovsky> polyonymous-note: so, can you please test opie with such a resolution? I somehow have a problem with h4000 where it starts up with screen rotated 90".
Sep 29 22:04:42 <psokolovsky> no such issue with hx4700
Sep 29 22:04:50 <psokolovsky> And it wasn't like that before.
Sep 29 22:05:33 <polyonymous-note> psokolovsky, aren't rotation probs machine-specific? I mean, I think qemu isn't the best testbed?
Sep 29 22:07:32 <psokolovsky> polyonymous: qvga Z device would be the best, yeah. but any test would be helpful. So we know, if it's really machine-specific.
Sep 29 22:07:43 <polyonymous-note> nah, my Z isn'
Sep 29 22:07:49 <polyonymous-note> t qvga
Sep 29 22:08:32 <polyonymous-note> But I can test with qemu once I fix my build environment, it's half-way built latest cvs opie (which doesn't build)
Sep 29 22:08:33 <psokolovsky> hm, ok
Sep 29 22:08:49 <psokolovsky> polyonymous: please test 1.2.3
Sep 29 22:09:03 <polyonymous-note> I hope 1.2.3 builds ;-)
Sep 29 22:09:18 <polyonymous-note> That would require cleaning tmp :)
Sep 29 22:10:38 <psokolovsky> polyonymous-note: yes, it build, and is the latest (know to work more or less good) release. See http://linux-h4000.sourceforge.net/busyb/oe/
Sep 29 22:13:49 <polyonymous-note> that's really strange, I think I have uncommitted fix that, I believe, should fix regardless of version... I'll show you now, just let the pull finish
Sep 29 22:14:20 * polyonymous-note wonders if oe ever considered moving to git... :)
Sep 29 22:16:27 <polyonymous> psokolovsky, this one: http://rafb.net/p/ozNJLl90.html
Sep 29 22:17:23 <psokolovsky> polyonymous: pristine OE build for me, see the CI link.
Sep 29 22:17:39 <polyonymous-note> Yes, but can I stay surprised? :)
Sep 29 22:17:44 <psokolovsky> polyonymous: on the other hand, I cannot say if BT works ;-)
Sep 29 22:18:01 <polyonymous-note> hmm... the question is if it builds, not if it works :)
Sep 29 22:18:14 <polyonymous-note> is it built in your configuration?
Sep 29 22:18:36 <psokolovsky> polyonymous-note: it is built in *pristine* configuration.
Sep 29 22:19:07 <polyonymous-note> well, let's put it the other way - is obex built for all machines? And is it built for all machines?
Sep 29 22:19:46 <polyonymous-note> ah, hm.. I think it is built for all machines, if I understand the output right...
Sep 29 22:20:14 <psokolovsky> polyonymous-note: as you can see from CI, pre-last (and last too, by now) was finished completely OK. by clicking thru stuff, you can see what was built and how.
Sep 29 22:20:47 <polyonymous-note> lemme click around...
Sep 29 22:23:34 <polyonymous-note> psokolovsky, it's hard to trace much clicking around, I mostly get 'N tasks of which N didn't need to be run' of sorts :)
Sep 29 22:23:43 <psokolovsky> koen: Can mkfs.jffs2 be installed on serenity, plee-e-ease!
Sep 29 22:24:36 <psokolovsky> polyonymous-note: try to search for "opie-image". found? that means opie was build. anything red nearby? no? that means it built ok (not from scratch of course)
Sep 29 22:25:13 <polyonymous-note> psokolovsky, what I want to see is a successfull log of libopkeobex being compiled. And, even though it might be there, I can't find it :)
Sep 29 22:25:54 <psokolovsky> polyonymous-note: OK means it was once compiled. log may be not there, yeah, can be rotated
Sep 29 22:26:45 <polyonymous-note> psokolovsky, in short, it doesn't convince me it actually does build from scratch ;-)
Sep 29 22:27:25 <polyonymous-note> anyway, I started my build with empty tmp...
Sep 29 22:28:34 <psokolovsky> polyonymous-note: that system also once (beginning of Sept) started with empty tmp/
Sep 29 22:30:41 <polyonymous-note> psokolovsky, "once" :0
Sep 29 22:31:53 <psokolovsky> polyonymous-note: I know of little changes made to opie1.2.3 since that
Sep 29 22:32:18 <polyonymous-note> what about this qmake issue? 
Sep 29 22:33:45 <psokolovsky> polyonymous-note: which issue?
Sep 29 22:34:00 <polyonymous-note> psokolovsky, class-rename
Sep 29 22:34:13 <psokolovsky> polyonymous-note: ping zecke?
Sep 29 22:34:34 <polyonymous-note> I mean - this is the change that affects opie1.2.3
Sep 29 22:35:13 <psokolovsky> polyonymous-note: yes, w/o it it didn't build at all
Sep 29 22:35:35 <polyonymous-note> so, you mean the machine has had empty tmp *after* that?
Sep 29 22:37:12 <psokolovsky> polyonymous-note: anyway, what are we talking about? I used to get lotsa notices that "X doesn't build". I got bored to respond, not speaking about triaging them. I set up a CI which build a pristine OE repo, to be able to refer people to objective situation, not my subjective opinion on that. That's all.
Sep 29 22:37:58 <psokolovsky> polyonymous-note: So, you say it doesn't build for you? I prove that it builds for me - all data for reproducing is there.
Sep 29 22:38:03 <psokolovsky> polyonymous-note: sure.
Sep 29 22:39:34 <psokolovsky> polyonymous-note: so, if the talk is about if you should apply that patch or not - please try w/o it, and if it doesn't work, apply, what's the problem?
Sep 29 22:39:44 <polyonymous-note> psokolovsky, I'm only talking about my "subjective opinion" which actually overweight any "objective situation" :) That's no problem at all, since I'm not an average user, so I'm all for fixing my problems myself.
Sep 29 22:39:53 <psokolovsky> (it's all about 1.2.3, again)
Sep 29 22:40:10 <polyonymous-note> psokolovsky, It's just that I'm suprised it's built for you and pointing this out, because you might be interested.
Sep 29 22:40:24 <psokolovsky> polyonymous-note: I don't tell it's your problem, I just tell that I can't reproduce it.
Sep 29 22:40:32 <polyonymous-note> psokolovsky, I'm not urging you to assist me with fixing or anything, of course.
Sep 29 22:40:41 <polyonymous-note> exactly what surprises me :)
**** ENDING LOGGING AT Sun Sep 30 02:59:56 2007