Bitbake requires Python 2.7.3

Bitbake requires Python 2.7.3

[Chris Tapp]

I'm experimenting with meta-fsl-arm and I need to use 'master' for some of the latest updates. However, when I build I get told that "Bitbake requires Python 2.7.3".

My development system is Ubuntu 11.10, which only has 2.7.2 (and is out of support, so no updates!) and the "latest" "Quick Start" manual simply says that 2.7 is required.

Is 2.7.3 now a hard requirement (in which case the documentation could do with a minor change), or is the version test being too specific?

Chris Tapp

opensource@keylevel.com
www.keylevel.com

Re: Bitbake requires Python 2.7.3

[ChenQi]

On 06/28/2013 04:55 PM, Chris Tapp wrote:
> I'm experimenting with meta-fsl-arm and I need to use 'master' for some of the latest updates. However, when I build I get told that "Bitbake requires Python 2.7.3".
>
> My development system is Ubuntu 11.10, which only has 2.7.2 (and is out of support, so no updates!) and the "latest" "Quick Start" manual simply says that 2.7 is required.
>
> Is 2.7.3 now a hard requirement (in which case the documentation could do with a minor change), or is the version test being too specific?

I run into the same problem on Ubuntu 11.10, and I installed python2.7.5.
Everything's been working out well so far.


//Chen Qi
> Chris Tapp
>
> opensource@keylevel.com
> www.keylevel.com
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> yocto mailing list
> yocto@yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
>
>

Re: Bitbake requires Python 2.7.3

[Chris Tapp]

On 28 Jun 2013, at 10:06, ChenQi wrote:

> On 06/28/2013 04:55 PM, Chris Tapp wrote:
>> I'm experimenting with meta-fsl-arm and I need to use 'master' for some of the latest updates. However, when I build I get told that "Bitbake requires Python 2.7.3".
>> 
>> My development system is Ubuntu 11.10, which only has 2.7.2 (and is out of support, so no updates!) and the "latest" "Quick Start" manual simply says that 2.7 is required.
>> 
>> Is 2.7.3 now a hard requirement (in which case the documentation could do with a minor change), or is the version test being too specific?
> 
> I run into the same problem on Ubuntu 11.10, and I installed python2.7.5.
> Everything's been working out well so far.

I've done this and all's well. Thanks.

> 
> //Chen Qi
>> Chris Tapp
>> 
>> opensource@keylevel.com
>> www.keylevel.com
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> yocto mailing list
>> yocto@yoctoproject.org
>> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
>> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> yocto mailing list
> yocto@yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto

Chris Tapp

opensource@keylevel.com
www.keylevel.com

Re: Bitbake requires Python 2.7.3

[Paul Eggleton]

Hi Chris,

On Friday 28 June 2013 09:55:42 Chris Tapp wrote:
> I'm experimenting with meta-fsl-arm and I need to use 'master' for some of
> the latest updates. However, when I build I get told that "Bitbake requires
> Python 2.7.3".
> 
> My development system is Ubuntu 11.10, which only has 2.7.2 (and is out of
> support, so no updates!) and the "latest" "Quick Start" manual simply says
> that 2.7 is required.
> 
> Is 2.7.3 now a hard requirement (in which case the documentation could do
> with a minor change), or is the version test being too specific?

It is now a requirement, yes (as are git >= 1.7.5 and tar >= 1.24). As I 
understand it a documentation update is queued to cover this.

FWIW, for older hosts where installing these tools in the normal fashion is 
difficult or impractical, there is now buildtools-tarball (which replaces and 
extends the old external-python-tarball). This builds on the relocatable SDK 
installer to provide suitable versions of python, git, tar and other tools 
required on the build host. I believe the plan is to offer this for download so 
that people can get started immediately (and of course point to this in the 
documentation).

Cheers,
Paul

-- 

Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre

Re: Bitbake requires Python 2.7.3

[Paul Barker]

On 28 June 2013 10:40, Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> FWIW, for older hosts where installing these tools in the normal fashion is
> difficult or impractical, there is now buildtools-tarball (which replaces and
> extends the old external-python-tarball). This builds on the relocatable SDK
> installer to provide suitable versions of python, git, tar and other tools
> required on the build host. I believe the plan is to offer this for download so
> that people can get started immediately (and of course point to this in the
> documentation).
>

Just chiming in to say that sounds excellent. Will this contain a
known-working make as well for those with a broken make 3.82?

--
Paul Barker

Email: paul@paulbarker.me.uk
http://www.paulbarker.me.uk

Re: Bitbake requires Python 2.7.3

[Paul Eggleton]

Hi Paul,

On Friday 28 June 2013 11:16:14 Paul Barker wrote:
> On 28 June 2013 10:40, Paul Eggleton <paul.eggleton@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > FWIW, for older hosts where installing these tools in the normal fashion
> > is difficult or impractical, there is now buildtools-tarball (which replaces
> > and extends the old external-python-tarball). This builds on the
> > relocatable SDK installer to provide suitable versions of python, git,
> > tar and other tools required on the build host. I believe the plan is to
> > offer this for download so that people can get started immediately (and
> > of course point to this in the documentation).
> 
> Just chiming in to say that sounds excellent. Will this contain a
> known-working make as well for those with a broken make 3.82?

A patch has recently been merged to do exactly this, yes.

Cheers,
Paul

-- 

Paul Eggleton
Intel Open Source Technology Centre

Re: Bitbake requires Python 2.7.3

[Burton, Ross]

On 28 June 2013 11:16, Paul Barker <paul@paulbarker.me.uk> wrote:
> Just chiming in to say that sounds excellent. Will this contain a
> known-working make as well for those with a broken make 3.82?

What systems have a broken 3.82?  I'm aware that Debian Experimental
has it, but stable/testing/unstable have a working 3.81.  Certain
older versions of Suse also had a broken 3.82, but they've been fixed
recently after I filed some bugs.  Is it just Fedora 16?

Ross

Re: Bitbake requires Python 2.7.3

[Mark Hatle]

On 6/28/13 5:53 AM, Burton, Ross wrote:
> On 28 June 2013 11:16, Paul Barker <paul@paulbarker.me.uk> wrote:
>> Just chiming in to say that sounds excellent. Will this contain a
>> known-working make as well for those with a broken make 3.82?
>
> What systems have a broken 3.82?  I'm aware that Debian Experimental
> has it, but stable/testing/unstable have a working 3.81.  Certain
> older versions of Suse also had a broken 3.82, but they've been fixed
> recently after I filed some bugs.  Is it just Fedora 16?

Fedora 16 and newer
Arch Linux
Debian Experimental

I wouldn't be surprised if there are others.

(I filed a bug for Fedora, so FC 18 and FC 19 will be fixed if they're not already.)

Someone on the OE-Core list said they would file a bug on Arch Linux.

--Mark

> Ross
> _______________________________________________
> yocto mailing list
> yocto@yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
>

Re: Bitbake requires Python 2.7.3

[Burton, Ross]

On 28 June 2013 18:03, Mark Hatle <mark.hatle@windriver.com> wrote:
> Fedora 16 and newer
> Arch Linux
> Debian Experimental
>
> I wouldn't be surprised if there are others.
>
> (I filed a bug for Fedora, so FC 18 and FC 19 will be fixed if they're not
> already.)

I'm pretty sure FC17 onwards is fixed.

Ross

Re: Bitbake requires Python 2.7.3

[Trevor Woerner]

On 28 June 2013 06:53, Burton, Ross <ross.burton@intel.com> wrote:
> On 28 June 2013 11:16, Paul Barker <paul@paulbarker.me.uk> wrote:
>> Just chiming in to say that sounds excellent. Will this contain a
>> known-working make as well for those with a broken make 3.82?
>
> What systems have a broken 3.82?  I'm aware that Debian Experimental
> has it, but stable/testing/unstable have a working 3.81.  Certain
> older versions of Suse also had a broken 3.82, but they've been fixed
> recently after I filed some bugs.  Is it just Fedora 16?


I'm using the latest released version of openSuSE (12.3), 64-bit, and
recent pulls from master have started complaining that my make-3.82 is
broken, so I had to manually downgrade to make-3.81.

As it turns out, this "make" downgrade also fixed a problem I was
having with my gumstix build (but I hadn't been seeing any other build
failures that are now fixed by this downgrade).

Re: Bitbake requires Python 2.7.3

[Burton, Ross]

On 4 July 2013 03:48, Trevor Woerner <trevor.woerner@linaro.org> wrote:
> I'm using the latest released version of openSuSE (12.3), 64-bit, and
> recent pulls from master have started complaining that my make-3.82 is
> broken, so I had to manually downgrade to make-3.81.

File a bug with suse about this, they've fixed up previous releases
when I've filed bugs about 11.something so should be quite responsive
with this.

Ross

Re: Bitbake requires Python 2.7.3

[Rifenbark, Scott M]

Yep - this is on my plate to document.  

Scott

>-----Original Message-----
>From: yocto-bounces@yoctoproject.org [mailto:yocto-
>bounces@yoctoproject.org] On Behalf Of Paul Eggleton
>Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 2:40 AM
>To: Chris Tapp
>Cc: yocto@yoctoproject.org
>Subject: Re: [yocto] Bitbake requires Python 2.7.3
>
>Hi Chris,
>
>On Friday 28 June 2013 09:55:42 Chris Tapp wrote:
>> I'm experimenting with meta-fsl-arm and I need to use 'master' for
>some of
>> the latest updates. However, when I build I get told that "Bitbake
>requires
>> Python 2.7.3".
>>
>> My development system is Ubuntu 11.10, which only has 2.7.2 (and is
>out of
>> support, so no updates!) and the "latest" "Quick Start" manual simply
>says
>> that 2.7 is required.
>>
>> Is 2.7.3 now a hard requirement (in which case the documentation could
>do
>> with a minor change), or is the version test being too specific?
>
>It is now a requirement, yes (as are git >= 1.7.5 and tar >= 1.24). As I
>understand it a documentation update is queued to cover this.
>
>FWIW, for older hosts where installing these tools in the normal fashion
>is
>difficult or impractical, there is now buildtools-tarball (which
>replaces and
>extends the old external-python-tarball). This builds on the relocatable
>SDK
>installer to provide suitable versions of python, git, tar and other
>tools
>required on the build host. I believe the plan is to offer this for
>download so
>that people can get started immediately (and of course point to this in
>the
>documentation).
>
>Cheers,
>Paul
>
>--
>
>Paul Eggleton
>Intel Open Source Technology Centre
>_______________________________________________
>yocto mailing list
>yocto@yoctoproject.org
>https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto