trying to get newest bitbake package into fedora

trying to get newest bitbake package into fedora

[Robert P. J. Day]

  not sure if anyone involved with OE gets involved with this, but for
the sake of fedora folks, i'm trying to get an updated bitbake package
into fedora:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529067

  obviously not critical, just convenient if it happens.

rday
--

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day                               Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA

            Linux Consulting, Training and Kernel Pedantry.

Web page:                                          http://crashcourse.ca
Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
========================================================================

Re: trying to get newest bitbake package into fedora

[Marcin Juszkiewicz]

Dnia środa, 4 listopada 2009 o 08:38:28 Robert P. J. Day napisał(a):
>   not sure if anyone involved with OE gets involved with this, but for
> the sake of fedora folks, i'm trying to get an updated bitbake package
> into fedora:
> 
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529067
> 
>   obviously not critical, just convenient if it happens.

If that help I have somewhere srpm for bitbake 1.6.2.

Regards, 
-- 
JID:      hrw@jabber.org
Website:  http://marcin.juszkiewicz.com.pl/
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/marcinjuszkiewicz

Re: trying to get newest bitbake package into fedora

[Robert P. J. Day]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 1246 bytes --]

On Wed, 4 Nov 2009, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote:

> Dnia środa, 4 listopada 2009 o 08:38:28 Robert P. J. Day napisał(a):
> >   not sure if anyone involved with OE gets involved with this, but for
> > the sake of fedora folks, i'm trying to get an updated bitbake package
> > into fedora:
> >
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529067
> >
> >   obviously not critical, just convenient if it happens.
>
> If that help I have somewhere srpm for bitbake 1.6.2.

  i could probably repackage it, i just wasn't sure if someone at OE
monitored packaging requests like that or was notified by fedora when
requests like that came in.  and i might as well update that BZ report
since i notice that there's already a 1.8.16 release.  that was quick.
show-stopper bug in 1.8.14?

rday
--

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day                               Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA

            Linux Consulting, Training and Kernel Pedantry.

Web page:                                          http://crashcourse.ca
Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
========================================================================

Re: trying to get newest bitbake package into fedora

[Richard Purdie]

On Wed, 2009-11-04 at 03:24 -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>   i could probably repackage it, i just wasn't sure if someone at OE
> monitored packaging requests like that or was notified by fedora when
> requests like that came in.  and i might as well update that BZ report
> since i notice that there's already a 1.8.16 release.  that was quick.
> show-stopper bug in 1.8.14?

During the release I screwed up and introduced a typo that was serious
enough to kill the .14 release :(.

Cheers,

Richard

Re: trying to get newest bitbake package into fedora

[Robert P. J. Day]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 1445 bytes --]

On Wed, 4 Nov 2009, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote:

> Dnia środa, 4 listopada 2009 o 08:38:28 Robert P. J. Day napisał(a):
> >   not sure if anyone involved with OE gets involved with this, but for
> > the sake of fedora folks, i'm trying to get an updated bitbake package
> > into fedora:
> >
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529067
> >
> >   obviously not critical, just convenient if it happens.
>
> If that help I have somewhere srpm for bitbake 1.6.2.

  with fedora, it's easier than rummaging around, looking for
corresponding srpms.  if a binary package exists, then getting the
corresponding source package usually involves just:

$ yumdownloader --source bitbake
... snip ...
bitbake-1.8.10-3.fc11.src.rpm
$

  so now i have the source rpm for bitbake 1.8.10.  if it looks easy
to update it to 1.8.16, i'll take a shot at it, unless someone else
wants to do the honours.  the source rpm is only 127K in size if
anyone wants me to email it to them.

rday
--

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day                               Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA

            Linux Consulting, Training and Kernel Pedantry.

Web page:                                          http://crashcourse.ca
Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
========================================================================

Re: trying to get newest bitbake package into fedora

[Robert P. J. Day]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 1160 bytes --]

On Wed, 4 Nov 2009, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote:

> Dnia środa, 4 listopada 2009 o 08:38:28 Robert P. J. Day napisał(a):
> >   not sure if anyone involved with OE gets involved with this, but for
> > the sake of fedora folks, i'm trying to get an updated bitbake package
> > into fedora:
> >
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529067
> >
> >   obviously not critical, just convenient if it happens.
>
> If that help I have somewhere srpm for bitbake 1.6.2.

  or (forgive me for not pointing this out in the earlier post),
anyone can get the source rpm here:

ftp://ftp.nrc.ca/pub/systems/linux/redhat/fedora/linux//releases/11/Everything/source/SRPMS/bitbake-1.8.10-3.fc11.src.rpm

rday
--

========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day                               Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA

            Linux Consulting, Training and Kernel Pedantry.

Web page:                                          http://crashcourse.ca
Twitter:                                       http://twitter.com/rpjday
========================================================================