src > bitbake > ipkg
martin.jansa at gmail.com
Fri Apr 2 00:20:06 CEST 2010
On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 11:58:45PM +0200, pike wrote:
> >> Bear with me :-) The bitbake recipe refers to the ipk ?
> > bitbake recipe is "build description" which instructs bitbake how to
> > create correct .ipk or .dep or .rpm or whatever from "source archive".
> > In thone case it's "repackaging" your scripts.
> Thanks for being clear here. I thought long
> and deep about this, and, read a manual :-)
> Probably the bitbake recipe is more complicated
> than the ipk it creates, but I guess that doesnt
> matter on your side - you need the recipe, not
> the bread.
So can I push the recipe for 0.6 as is and then improve it with next
version? I would like to.. as I'm leaving tomorrow for few days..
And it's pretty simple
but those 'cp' aren't good practise as you cannot easily adjust ie file
permissions as install call does..
> For now, I'll try hosting the ipkg myself;
> based on the one you created.
> A question: why is that file different than
> the ipkg described by QTopia
> or even here
> In these descriptions, the control directory is
> a directory, not a file.
I never used ipkg-build manually, I guess that CONTROL is only temporary
file and CONTROL/control is what is packed in .ipk as control, so the
same.. but as I said before, I never used it manualy and I'm not .ipk
format expert :).
> just curious,
uin:136542059 jid:Martin.Jansa at gmail.com
Jansa Martin sip:jamasip at voip.wengo.fr
More information about the community