Re: Bitbake build error on Fedora 12 x86 64-bit

["Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@crashcourse.ca>]

On Mon, 25 Jan 2010, Holger Hans Peter Freyther wrote:

> On Sunday 24 January 2010 16:34:43 Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>
> > > On the other hand I agree totally agree that more testers the
> > > better, but IMO this would also mean that they follow the low
> > > volume bitbake-dev mailinglist, to get information like the
> > > svn->git switch, branches and such?!
> >
> >   i'm currently updating the bitbake manual (yes, you should be
> > nervous) and i noticed that there is nothing early on about how to
> > *get* bitbake.  so i'm going to add a short section, suggesting
> > first to use the latest official tarball (explaining where to get
> > it), followed by a section for more advanced users on how to check
> > it out, with the appropriate cautions.
>
> Thanks a lot for doing this update.

  still working on it, but a question.  a while back, i observed that
one of the OE branches (stable/2009?) came with bitbake built in,
while the other i work with (dev) did not.  or was it the other way
around?  and there was some confusion as to why the situation would be
different between the two branches.

  can i document that, no matter what branch one is working with, the
proper approach is to download bitbake separately and make sure that's
the one that's being invoked.  (i might add a short side note that
some branches came with bitbake built in, but users should *not* take
advantage of that.)

  does that sound reasonable?

rday
--


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

            Linux Consulting, Training and Kernel Pedantry.

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