**** BEGIN LOGGING AT Fri Sep 12 02:59:58 2014 Sep 12 04:27:33 Hello, I want to upgrade new packages in openembedded...Is there any config file where i need to mention the version of the package (e.g. gtk+)???? Sep 12 04:31:24 so that while doing bitbake, it takes the desired recipe version for the package..... Sep 12 06:30:15 morning. sorry to keep posting this, but I hope someone with an answer eventually sees it: Anyone know if there is the fix for the issue where gcc from the sdk segfaults if lic.so.6 is not deleted? Sep 12 06:30:27 libc.so.6 Sep 12 07:21:17 good morning Sep 12 07:23:50 hi mckoan Sep 12 07:24:26 hi woglinde Sep 12 08:20:17 is it possible to run a process "in front of" oe_runmake Sep 12 08:21:03 like clang analyze has scan-build which you would normally run like scan-build make Sep 12 08:44:50 heeen: you might be able to redefine MAKE iirc Sep 12 08:45:10 I just call scan-build $MAKE Sep 12 08:45:40 heeen: no, set MAKE = "scan-build make" in the recipe Sep 12 08:45:56 You'd have to check the code though, I'm going from memory Sep 12 08:46:04 right Sep 12 08:52:57 morning all Sep 12 10:05:55 Hi All, I am upgrading gtk+-2.20.1 library in OE...in this regard, autoconf is also updated but i am getting error like "autoconf 2.62 or higher version require" Sep 12 10:06:18 i have added autoconf-2.65 version Sep 12 10:08:42 but still getting the error, could anyone please suggest me the reason? Sep 12 10:09:25 bryan what? Sep 12 10:09:34 which version of oe Sep 12 10:09:39 or release Sep 12 10:12:20 OE-Classic Sep 12 10:15:34 hm nobody works on classic anymore Sep 12 10:16:20 check yourself which autoconf version is in the tmp/sysroots dir Sep 12 13:50:59 @woglinde>: I have checked tmp/staging/i686-linux/ folder and there is autoconf v2.61....but i have added autoconf v2.65 recipe and patches... Sep 12 13:58:43 I am upgrading gtk+-2.20.1 library in OE-Classic...in this regard, autoconf is also updated but i am getting error like "autoconf 2.62 or higher version require".....any suggestion on this issue? Sep 12 14:00:57 i have added autoconf 2.65 versoin but still getting error Sep 12 17:18:58 I am having an issue with building a kernel image with an embedded initramfs Sep 12 17:19:16 If I set INITRAMFS_IMAGEin the image recipe it does not bundle, if I set it in local.conf it does Sep 12 17:19:39 Is there something I am missing, or must this var be placed in local.conf? Sep 12 17:23:57 FatboyFitz why not use the existing initramfs recipe rename and extend it? Sep 12 17:28:08 woglinde That is somewhat what I was trying to do. I was basing off of core-image-minimal-initramfs Sep 12 17:28:41 woglinde Eventually will need to produce several different kernel images, each with a different initramfs built in Sep 12 17:29:56 woglinde Is there a better example for me to use (I am very new to using OE) Sep 12 17:38:44 woglinde My web IRC crashed - can you repeat any response about INITRAMFS_IMAGE options? Sep 12 17:54:31 FatboyFitz no, core-image-minimal-initramfs is a good start Sep 12 17:54:53 FatboyFitz and you can run the same image-name for all your diffrent machines Sep 12 18:00:26 woglinde: Any idea why specifying the INITRAMFS_IMAGE in my core-image-MyImage_1.0.0.bb (copied form core-image-minimal) does not bundle it Sep 12 18:01:04 woglinde: When I look at the kernel bundle run script, it shows an empty expansion for INITRAMFS_IMAGE Sep 12 18:06:25 FatboyFitz hm no sorry Sep 12 18:07:32 woglinde: Thanks for helping Sep 12 18:08:44 General build question. I am creating a distribution that has 2 highly related but distinct images (think server version and client version) each on at least 2 architectures Sep 12 18:09:28 Best I can tell, I need to have a "local.conf" version for each architecture (x86, qemux86, arm) and swap them in when I build for that target. Is that the right approach? Sep 12 18:09:56 FatboyFitz depends Sep 12 18:10:23 if you only have images Sep 12 18:10:42 and not setup a distribution with online repository Sep 12 18:10:54 you can override the machine on cmdline with Sep 12 18:10:56 MACHINE= Sep 12 18:11:42 woglinde: No online repository - just kernel+initramfs images Sep 12 18:12:24 woglinde: I will try that again - when I last using MACHINE= on the command line I had build issues, but perhaps it was unrelated Sep 12 18:13:18 woglinde: I was actually looking for best practices so going forward we do not have to "fight the system" Sep 12 18:15:59 okay than you can build all stuff in one build-dir Sep 12 18:19:08 FatboyFitz, I think a lot of people set MACHINE= on command line Sep 12 18:19:17 if you have issue we'd like to know what they are Sep 12 18:20:41 Crofton|work: Once I get past the items in my brain right now, I will try another build using MACHINE= and report back any issues Sep 12 18:20:47 thanks Sep 12 18:22:55 Another build question. In an effort to use a stable release, I am using the Daisy OE branch and 1.22 bitbake branch Is that a reasonable choice? Sep 12 18:23:45 yes Sep 12 18:23:55 if daisy calls for bb 1.22 Sep 12 18:25:39 Crofton|work: I pulled the choice from here https://wiki.yoctoproject.org/wiki/Releases **** BEGIN LOGGING AT Fri Sep 12 22:40:38 2014 **** BEGIN LOGGING AT Fri Sep 12 23:15:27 2014 **** BEGIN LOGGING AT Sat Sep 13 01:26:41 2014 **** ENDING LOGGING AT Sat Sep 13 02:59:58 2014