git pull

git pull

[robin]

I am using the Openembedded for the beagleboard.
I had setup using below steps

export OETREE="${HOME}/OE" 
mkdir -p ${OETREE} && cd ${OETREE} 
git clone git://git.openembedded.org/openembedded.git openembedded 
cd openembedded git checkout origin/stable/2009 -b stable/2009
cd ${OETREE}/openembedded 
git pull

and then
bitbake beagleboard-demo-image

Now i wanted to update recipes folder.
git pull --rebase

It showed files which needs update. So i gave below command
git pull 

But the recipes/ti folder is not updated with latest files,
which command needs to be used to update recipes directory ?

Robin

------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
DISCLAIMER: This e-mail and any attachment (s) is for authorised use by the
intended recipient (s) only. It may contain proprietary material, confidential
information and/or be subject to the legal privilege of iWave Systems
Technologies Private Limited. If you have received this message in error,
please notify the originator immediately. If you are not the intended
recipient, you are notified that you are strictly prohibited from retaining,
using, copying, alerting or disclosing the content of this message. Thank you
for your co-operation. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: git pull

[robin]

One more input, When i use
git pull
Already up-to-date.

and when i use
git pull --rebase
recipes/ti/ti-xdctools-native_3.15.01.59.bb: needs update
recipes/ti/ti-xdctools.inc: needs update
refusing to pull with rebase: your working tree is not up-to-date

what is the correct command ?

Robin

On Tue, 2010-01-19 at 13:31 +0530, robin wrote:

> I am using the Openembedded for the beagleboard.
> I had setup using below steps
> 
> export OETREE="${HOME}/OE" 
> mkdir -p ${OETREE} && cd ${OETREE} 
> git clone git://git.openembedded.org/openembedded.git openembedded 
> cd openembedded git checkout origin/stable/2009 -b stable/2009
> cd ${OETREE}/openembedded 
> git pull
> 
> and then
> bitbake beagleboard-demo-image
> 
> Now i wanted to update recipes folder.
> git pull --rebase
> 
> It showed files which needs update. So i gave below command
> git pull 
> 
> But the recipes/ti folder is not updated with latest files,
> which command needs to be used to update recipes directory ?
> 
> Robin
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> DISCLAIMER: This e-mail and any attachment (s) is for authorised use by the
> intended recipient (s) only. It may contain proprietary material, confidential
> information and/or be subject to the legal privilege of iWave Systems
> Technologies Private Limited. If you have received this message in error,
> please notify the originator immediately. If you are not the intended
> recipient, you are notified that you are strictly prohibited from retaining,
> using, copying, alerting or disclosing the content of this message. Thank you
> for your co-operation. 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel



------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
DISCLAIMER: This e-mail and any attachment (s) is for authorised use by the
intended recipient (s) only. It may contain proprietary material, confidential
information and/or be subject to the legal privilege of iWave Systems
Technologies Private Limited. If you have received this message in error,
please notify the originator immediately. If you are not the intended
recipient, you are notified that you are strictly prohibited from retaining,
using, copying, alerting or disclosing the content of this message. Thank you
for your co-operation. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: git pull

[Paul Wilson]

I am having the same problem as Robin. Any suggestions?

Paul


On 19/01/2010 1:09 AM, robin wrote:
> One more input, When i use
> git pull
> Already up-to-date.
>
> and when i use
> git pull --rebase
> recipes/ti/ti-xdctools-native_3.15.01.59.bb: needs update
> recipes/ti/ti-xdctools.inc: needs update
> refusing to pull with rebase: your working tree is not up-to-date
>
> what is the correct command ?
>
> Robin
>    
>

Re: git pull

[Khem Raj]

On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 10:37 AM, Paul Wilson
<paul@paulwilsonconsulting.com> wrote:
> I am having the same problem as Robin. Any suggestions?

read the wiki
http://wiki.openembedded.net/index.php/GitPhraseBook#Upgrading_your_data_.28lurking.29

>
> Paul
>
>
> On 19/01/2010 1:09 AM, robin wrote:
>>
>> One more input, When i use
>> git pull
>> Already up-to-date.
>>
>> and when i use
>> git pull --rebase
>> recipes/ti/ti-xdctools-native_3.15.01.59.bb: needs update
>> recipes/ti/ti-xdctools.inc: needs update
>> refusing to pull with rebase: your working tree is not up-to-date
>>
>> what is the correct command ?
>>
>> Robin
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
>

Bitbake build error on Fedora 12 x86 64-bit

[Elvis Dowson]

Hi,
                  I get the following error when attempting to build overo on Fedora 12 x86 64-bit version. 

Can you tell me how you can resolve this?

bitbake omap3-console-image

Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/tool/overo-oe/bitbake/bin/bitbake", line 143, in <module>
    main()
  File "/tool/overo-oe/bitbake/bin/bitbake", line 123, in main
    cooker.parseConfiguration()
  File "/tool/overo-oe/bitbake/lib/bb/cooker.py", line 68, in parseConfiguration
    self.parseConfigurationFile( os.path.join( "conf", "bitbake.conf" ) )
  File "/tool/overo-oe/bitbake/lib/bb/cooker.py", line 404, in parseConfigurationFile
    bb.event.fire(bb.event.ConfigParsed(self.configuration.data))
  File "/tool/overo-oe/bitbake/lib/bb/event.py", line 67, in fire
    if tmpHandler(event) == Handled:
  File "tmpHandler(e)", line 4, in tmpHandler
  File "<bb>", line 18, in check_sanity
NameError: global name 'os' is not defined

Best regards,

Elvis Dowson

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

[Elvis Dowson]

Hi,
       I found the solution for this. I was using the older svn repository, and bitbake is now being maintained using the git repository, which has the latest updates.

Switching to the git version of the bitbake repository helped remove the error, and the build has now commenced! :-)

$ git clone git://git.openembedded.org/bitbake.git
$ cd bitbake
$ git checkout -b 1.8 --track origin/1.8
$ cd ..

Best regards,

Elvis Dowson

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

[Holger Hans Peter Freyther]

On Saturday 23 January 2010 13:38:08 Elvis Dowson wrote:
> Hi,
>        I found the solution for this. I was using the older svn repository,
>  and bitbake is now being maintained using the git repository, which has
>  the latest updates.
> 
> Switching to the git version of the bitbake repository helped remove the
>  error, and the build has now commenced! :-)

And in general we encourage users to use the release tarballs of Bitbake. This 
is why you should not be able to find your git commands in the documentation on 
OpenEmbedded.org

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

[Elvis Dowson]

Hi Hans,

On Jan 23, 2010, at 4:57 PM, Holger Hans Peter Freyther wrote:

> This is why you should not be able to find your git commands in the documentation on 
> OpenEmbedded.org

Not quite sure I follow what you're trying to say ... I won't be able to find my git commands ? 

BTW, I keep documenting every step, and then share it back with the Overo community. Right now experimenting with 64-bit linux platform for trying to speed up the overo-oe builds.

Best regards,

Elvis Dowson

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

[Paul Menzel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 772 bytes --]

Dear Elvis,


Am Samstag, den 23.01.2010, 17:24 +0400 schrieb Elvis Dowson:
> On Jan 23, 2010, at 4:57 PM, Holger Hans Peter Freyther wrote:
> 
> > This is why you should not be able to find your git commands in the
> documentation on 
> > OpenEmbedded.org
> 
> Not quite sure I follow what you're trying to say ... I won't be able
> to find my git commands ?

You used Git to get BitBake. The needed commands you used are not
documented on OpenEmbedded.org. The reason is that it is officially
recommended by OE to use the tarballs.

> BTW, I keep documenting every step, and then share it back with the
> Overo community. Right now experimenting with 64-bit linux platform
> for trying to speed up the overo-oe builds.

Great!


Thanks,

Paul

[-- Attachment #2: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 205 bytes --]

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

[Elvis Dowson]

Hi,

On Jan 23, 2010, at 6:51 PM, Paul Menzel wrote:
> 
> You used Git to get BitBake. The needed commands you used are not
> documented on OpenEmbedded.org. The reason is that it is officially
> recommended by OE to use the tarballs.

Oh, okay!! Most of the people who use bitbake for overo development always pull from the latest sources. Perhaps that is why we endup getting so many problems once in a while. 

When I search for a solution to the os problem, I found that it was fixed in the latest release of bitbake in the git repository.

Best regards,

Elvis

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

[Holger Hans Peter Freyther]

On Saturday 23 January 2010 14:24:30 Elvis Dowson wrote:

> Not quite sure I follow what you're trying to say ... I won't be able to
>  find my git commands ?

Don't use git to get your bitbake, use a released version.

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

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010, Holger Hans Peter Freyther wrote:

> On Saturday 23 January 2010 13:38:08 Elvis Dowson wrote:

> > Hi, I found the solution for this. I was using the older svn
> > repository, and bitbake is now being maintained using the git
> > repository, which has the latest updates.
> >
> > Switching to the git version of the bitbake repository helped
> > remove the error, and the build has now commenced! :-)
>
> And in general we encourage users to use the release tarballs of
> Bitbake. This is why you should not be able to find your git
> commands in the documentation on OpenEmbedded.org

  just catching up on this thread ... i'm confused, what does it mean
to say, "you should not be able to find your git commands in the
documentation on OpenEmbedded.org"?  does that mean that the
development version of bitbake has additional commands above and
beyond the latest tarball release that aren't documented?  or what?

  also, while i appreciate that you encourage people to use the stable
version of bitbake, i don't think you should be so discouraging
regarding people who want to use the git checkout.  as long as people
realize it's a development version, why would you want to talk people
out of using it and helping you identify possible bugs?

  as long as users know the risks, i'd personally *encourage* them to
use the dev version, and reports bugs they find.  the more testers,
the better, no?

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: Bitbake build error on Fedora 12 x86 64-bit

[Holger Hans Peter Freyther]

On Sunday 24 January 2010 14:50:39 Robert P. J. Day wrote:

>   as long as users know the risks, i'd personally *encourage* them to
> use the dev version, and reports bugs they find.  the more testers,
> the better, no?

It really depends. People following the getting started documentation are 
normally not in the class of users that know the risks?! Do you agree?

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?!

love
	z.

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

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010, Holger Hans Peter Freyther wrote:

> On Sunday 24 January 2010 14:50:39 Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>
> >   as long as users know the risks, i'd personally *encourage* them
> > to use the dev version, and reports bugs they find.  the more
> > testers, the better, no?
>
> It really depends. People following the getting started
> documentation are normally not in the class of users that know the
> risks?! Do you agree?

  absolutely, which is why i qualified that recommendation with "as
long as users know the risks", with the risks (or at least reasonable
cautions) pointed out to them.

> 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.

  there will be a HUGE caution added that people should make sure
they're not running an old version.

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: Bitbake build error on Fedora 12 x86 64-bit

[Holger Hans Peter Freyther]

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.

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

[Robert P. J. Day]

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
========================================================================

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

[Koen Kooi]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 25-01-10 12:49, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> 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?

*If* is has bitbake builtin, users should use that one, as it is certain
that bitbake will match the metadata. You can opt to choose to install a
bitbake yourself, but then it's up to you to make sure bitbake and OE match.
Since stable/2009 is a long term branch we decided to put bitbake in
there to remove at least on point of failure.

regards,

Koen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFLXYt5MkyGM64RGpERAjcZAJ9/EskJ5wwW6yvdkzOXlRBCerbYyACfdOM4
HmGTgPTWrbAexAZv9zpXhqI=
=Tz1I
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Mon, 25 Jan 2010, Koen Kooi wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 25-01-10 12:49, Robert P. J. Day wrote:

> >   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?
>
> *If* is has bitbake builtin, users should use that one, as it is
> certain that bitbake will match the metadata. You can opt to choose
> to install a bitbake yourself, but then it's up to you to make sure
> bitbake and OE match. Since stable/2009 is a long term branch we
> decided to put bitbake in there to remove at least on point of
> failure.

  ok, i'll point that out, thanks.

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: Bitbake build error on Fedora 12 x86 64-bit

[Graeme Gregory]

On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 03:16:04PM +0400, Elvis Dowson wrote:
> Hi,
>                   I get the following error when attempting to build overo on Fedora 12 x86 64-bit version. 
> 
> Can you tell me how you can resolve this?
> 
> bitbake omap3-console-image
> 
> Traceback (most recent call last):
>   File "/tool/overo-oe/bitbake/bin/bitbake", line 143, in <module>
>     main()
>   File "/tool/overo-oe/bitbake/bin/bitbake", line 123, in main
>     cooker.parseConfiguration()
>   File "/tool/overo-oe/bitbake/lib/bb/cooker.py", line 68, in parseConfiguration
>     self.parseConfigurationFile( os.path.join( "conf", "bitbake.conf" ) )
>   File "/tool/overo-oe/bitbake/lib/bb/cooker.py", line 404, in parseConfigurationFile
>     bb.event.fire(bb.event.ConfigParsed(self.configuration.data))
>   File "/tool/overo-oe/bitbake/lib/bb/event.py", line 67, in fire
>     if tmpHandler(event) == Handled:
>   File "tmpHandler(e)", line 4, in tmpHandler
>   File "<bb>", line 18, in check_sanity
> NameError: global name 'os' is not defined
> 

That is almost certainly caused by not using the latest bitbake.

Graeme

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

[Elvis Dowson]

On Jan 23, 2010, at 4:39 PM, Graeme Gregory wrote:
> 
> That is almost certainly caused by not using the latest bitbake.
> 

Yes, figured that one out 2 days ago!! :-)

Elvis

Re: git pull

[Bjørn Forsman]

Hi Robin,

2010/1/19 robin <robinpv@iwavesystems.com>:
> One more input, When i use
> git pull
> Already up-to-date.
>
> and when i use
> git pull --rebase
> recipes/ti/ti-xdctools-native_3.15.01.59.bb: needs update
> recipes/ti/ti-xdctools.inc: needs update
> refusing to pull with rebase: your working tree is not up-to-date
>
> what is the correct command ?

You have a dirty working directory. Either 'stash' your changes away or
'commit' them to get to a clean state. (Or you can blow away the changes with
'git checkout .'.) Then do git pull/rebase.

Best regards,
Bjørn Forsman