OpenMoko & OE question

Rod Whitby rod at
Mon Feb 19 04:32:22 CET 2007

Werner Almesberger wrote:
> Rod Whitby wrote:
>> Cause MokoMakefile is designed to codify the official build procedure
>> (which currently still says use revision 1004).
> Please don't take that one as gospel yet. When branching from the
> pre-BBT variant, I just moved the version forward from the clearly
> obsolete 887 to the then latest version, but didn't run a full
> build yet, so it may well be broken. I've read that 1003 should be
> better, so I've changed that. Hope it helps. If not, please
> holler :-)

No problem - I assumed as much.  I'm just trying to be the "stay in step
the the core team builds" counterpoint to Koen's (equally valid) "run as
fast as you can to pure OE bleeding edge builds" work :-)

I have run full builds overnight with the 1004 version (with a few small
patches) and most recently with the 1041 version (with only one patch to
openmoko-mainmenu for the "-lmb" problem).

> In the hopefully not too distant future, I'll set up a machine to
> run builds regularly, which should help with this sort of QA.

Excellent.  I hope you will use MokoMakefile as the top-level executor
for that, so we know that the official QA builds can be easily
reproduced by external devs on their own build machines.

MokoMakefile will have full configuration management internally, with
versioned releases that match various significant versions of the
OpenMoko SCM repo (i.e. I currently have both patches/openmoko-1004 and
patches/openmoko-1041 dirs in the MokoMakefile SCM).

> Note that there are some more things that need updating, namely JTAG
> and how all this connects to the lab host. The current description
> is about the old hardware we're using for development right now, but
> which will be replaced by the much better debug v2 board for phase 0.
> EMS and customs willing, I should get mine in 1-2 days, so also this
> will still take a bit.

Is a debug v2 board included in the Phase 0 dev package?

> My idea was to have the build instructions for phase 0 ready for
> phase 0. I guess I should have expected that they'd be used before,
> and may cause a bit of confusion. Sorry about that.

No need to be sorry at all.  I take that attitude with OpenMoko that
access at this stage of development to the source code means that we
(external developers) should accept it in the state that it's in, report
bugs, get them fixed, and not make a big fuss about any unpolished work.

-- Rod

More information about the openmoko-devel mailing list