bitbake fso-image: git:// hung up unexpectedly

Russell Sears sears at
Thu Aug 21 19:16:29 CEST 2008

Rod Whitby wrote:
> Russell Sears wrote:
>> Do I want to do this:
>> wget
> ...
>> bitbake fso-image
>> or this:
>> git init
>> git pull git://
>> bitbake fso-image
> The latter, but see below for an (IMHO) easier way to set it up.
>> Both lead to a coherent looking bitbake setup.  The git way is how the 
>> feeds are made, right?  The wiki says to use monotone.  What's the 
>> difference between the two repositories?
> OE is moving from monotone to git.  (Real Soon Now TM)
>> Also, the wikis are broken.  Should this go away:
>> or should this:
>> I can do a three-way diff, and try to merge one into the other.  I'm 
>> pretty sure the (unmaintained?) OM one should be replaced with a link to 
>> the (maintained?) OE one, and the gtk theme stuff stuff should live 
>> somewhere else at OM.
>> Sound good?
> I have a severe dislike for non-executable build instructions on wikis,
> because they are always out of date and are continually duplicated with
> only tiny changes.  I think all the pages you listed should go away :-)
> details how to use the FsoMakefile (the
> FSO equivalent of the MokoMakefile) which is used to build the
> fso-testing and fso-unstable feeds on that site.

Thanks for producing the feeds for FSO, and FsoMakefile!  There was a 
great need for such a thing.

However, I think FsoMakefile would be a poor solution for me.  I'd like 
to make sure I'm not too far off base, since there's little 
documentation on this stuff (and I plan to fix that problem...).  On the 
other hand, the last thing we need is "Yet Another Way To Do Things" if 
there's no real need. ;)

I'm building the feed myself because I have a few changes that I'd like 
to make to FSO.

I wrote a few patches that aren't in mainline yet, I want to package a 
library or two, etc...  Also, I'm sick of manually copying binaries to 
/usr/bin, typing -force-depends and playing gross tricks like that.

The long term plan is to put a git server up somewhere that people can 
pull off of, along with auto-built feeds of the 3-5 packages I've 
modified.  I'll append some string to the end of the version numbers so 
that "opkg upgrade" automatically pulls in my packages.

I think this is the way that everyone should do it.  It would let users 
compile third party stuff by applying patches to FSO, SHR, 2007.2's 
packages/ directory, instead of doing hacks or editing .bb files...

Anyway, back on topic:

[Moko|Fso]Makefile hides the details of what's going on, while manually 
doing the git pull, and configuring the .conf makes it very obvious how 
the whole thing works, so people can figure out how to modify packages, 
and produce/apply patches.

I think the wiki should point people to your README for setting up build 
servers, and explain git pull and manual bitbake so people can learn how 
to modify packages.  Most of the information in there is correct, so 
only a few changes are needed.

Should the wiki point developers that want to produce patches to the FSO 
build system in monotone or git?  I'm guessing that git is the right one 
to document.



More information about the devel mailing list