From: digital_wiz <do...@in...> - 2012-03-22 19:58:18
|
As has been expressed in another thread I started, OpenEmbedded has been a great source of frustration to a great many people. So what are these frustrated people doing instead of OE? What are the feasible alternatives? Doug -- View this message in context: http://gumstix.8.n6.nabble.com/Alternatives-to-OpenEmbedded-tp4646244p4646244.html Sent from the Gumstix mailing list archive at Nabble.com. |
From: Brad M. <bmi...@gm...> - 2012-03-22 20:03:05
|
I like the idea of linaro/Ubuntu, but they may be spreading themselves too thin. Would be nice if the gumstix folks worked directly with them to make gumstix a primary targeted architecture. On Thursday, March 22, 2012, digital_wiz <do...@in...> wrote: > As has been expressed in another thread I started, OpenEmbedded has been a > great source of frustration to a great many people. So what are these > frustrated people doing instead of OE? What are the feasible alternatives? > > Doug > > > -- > View this message in context: http://gumstix.8.n6.nabble.com/Alternatives-to-OpenEmbedded-tp4646244p4646244.html > Sent from the Gumstix mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This SF email is sponsosred by: > Try Windows Azure free for 90 days Click Here > http://p.sf.net/sfu/sfd2d-msazure > _______________________________________________ > gumstix-users mailing list > gum...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gumstix-users > -- Brad Midgley |
From: j <vwy...@gm...> - 2012-03-22 20:11:19
|
On 03/22/2012 12:58 PM, digital_wiz wrote: > As has been expressed in another thread I started, OpenEmbedded has been a > great source of frustration to a great many people. So what are these > frustrated people doing instead of OE? What are the feasible alternatives? > > Doug > > > -- > View this message in context: http://gumstix.8.n6.nabble.com/Alternatives-to-OpenEmbedded-tp4646244p4646244.html > Sent from the Gumstix mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This SF email is sponsosred by: > Try Windows Azure free for 90 days Click Here > http://p.sf.net/sfu/sfd2d-msazure > _______________________________________________ > gumstix-users mailing list > gum...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gumstix-users I have been using mostly ArchArm, with a custom 3.2 Kernel (not fully working yet OTG is the last thing for me to get working, properly), but my 3.0 is still fully working. I had to go the custom kernel route as they say they "support" the overo but its minimal at best at this point. Their build environment is done differently (makepkg) and has its own pluses and minuses. distcc being the biggest pain, it was working for me for over a year and recently broke and have not been able to fix it yet. Which is what brought me back to trying to build OE again, figuring after not trying for almost 2 years things would be more consistent. I have tried numerous times now and previously to get things fully working with hit and miss results. I have been using it thought to build my MLO and u-boot.bin. I was gone from everything for about 9 months after some frustration with OE and when I started research again I chose on trying ArchArm and have been happier with that over a longer period of time than dealing with the OE. But I seem to be in the minority, since I can not create the same build environments that others seem to, which baffles me. |
From: EXT-McGhehey, M. J <Mar...@bo...> - 2012-03-22 21:12:18
|
I have used a variety of other embedded linux build systems for other processors and platforms. Most have been provided via a platform specific GCC toolchain and a set of distribution files. I have never had the issues with any them that I have with the Gumstix Openembedded setup. Why is it so hard for Gumstix to provide a package that just works? Mark -----Original Message----- From: j [mailto:vwy...@gm...] Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2012 1:11 PM To: gum...@li... Subject: Re: [Gumstix-users] Alternatives to OpenEmbedded On 03/22/2012 12:58 PM, digital_wiz wrote: > As has been expressed in another thread I started, OpenEmbedded has > been a great source of frustration to a great many people. So what > are these frustrated people doing instead of OE? What are the feasible alternatives? > > Doug > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://gumstix.8.n6.nabble.com/Alternatives-to-OpenEmbedded-tp4646244p > 4646244.html Sent from the Gumstix mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------- > This SF email is sponsosred by: > Try Windows Azure free for 90 days Click Here > http://p.sf.net/sfu/sfd2d-msazure > _______________________________________________ > gumstix-users mailing list > gum...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gumstix-users I have been using mostly ArchArm, with a custom 3.2 Kernel (not fully working yet OTG is the last thing for me to get working, properly), but my 3.0 is still fully working. I had to go the custom kernel route as they say they "support" the overo but its minimal at best at this point. Their build environment is done differently (makepkg) and has its own pluses and minuses. distcc being the biggest pain, it was working for me for over a year and recently broke and have not been able to fix it yet. Which is what brought me back to trying to build OE again, figuring after not trying for almost 2 years things would be more consistent. I have tried numerous times now and previously to get things fully working with hit and miss results. I have been using it thought to build my MLO and u-boot.bin. I was gone from everything for about 9 months after some frustration with OE and when I started research again I chose on trying ArchArm and have been happier with that over a longer period of time than dealing with the OE. But I seem to be in the minority, since I can not create the same build environments that others seem to, which baffles me. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF email is sponsosred by: Try Windows Azure free for 90 days Click Here http://p.sf.net/sfu/sfd2d-msazure _______________________________________________ gumstix-users mailing list gum...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gumstix-users |
From: Harvey C. <hch...@3g...> - 2012-03-22 21:33:21
|
On Mar 22, 2012, at 5:11 PM, EXT-McGhehey, Mark J wrote: > I have used a variety of other embedded linux build systems for other processors and platforms. Most have been provided via a platform specific GCC toolchain and a set of distribution files. I have never had the issues with any them that I have with the Gumstix Openembedded setup. Why is it so hard for Gumstix to provide a package that just works? We've been thinking of switching to Android. We don't really like OE either. It seems hard to understand, configure, and maintain. OE is also very poorly documented (which is not Gumstix' fault). OE is in some ways much better than the old build root environment. I'm sure if we had an OE expert on staff, we'd be ok with it. One reason to switch to android is that it seems to have lots of GUI-to-system interfaces that vanilla linux distros like OE just don't like wireless configuration and battery monitoring. I get tired of spending 90% of my time on each new project writing code for things like USB access, battery monitoring, upgrade routines, and more rather than writing code that relates directly to my customers' product function. All that said, we haven't done much real investigation of switching to android yet. Ubuntu might work for us if we stripped it down a bit. My customers always want a custom, single-app touchscreen interface with all of the usual features of a smartphone. Harvey |
From: Trevor W. <two...@gm...> - 2012-03-22 21:49:42
|
I guess maybe I need to speak up for the (silent?) majority (?) for whom OE works? Someone casually stumbling on this thread (and other such rants) might think OE doesn't work for anybody. It works fine for me and (presumably many?) others too. I find it humourous that this thread started because of a 404 error, something that has nothing to do with OE itself. Anyone could experience the odd network hickup when downloading so many pacakges from so many different places. Personally I'm quite fond of OE and its relatives (yocto, etc). Oddly enough, I too have also used many different build systems (including many self-rolled environments) and OE is the first I've really liked. Maybe if people are having so much trouble with OE they could look into hiring some OE expert to come by and give personal instruction. For example: http://www.intellimetrix.us/embeddedlinux.htm This person offers a course which includes OE instruction. Obviously if he's teaching a course in OE he obviously has years of successful OE-related experience. Surely someone like that wouldn't be fooled by something so OE-unrelated such as a 404 error? |
From: j <vwy...@gm...> - 2012-03-22 22:02:14
|
On 03/22/2012 02:49 PM, Trevor Woerner wrote: > I guess maybe I need to speak up for the (silent?) majority (?) for > whom OE works? > > Someone casually stumbling on this thread (and other such rants) might > think OE doesn't work for anybody. It works fine for me and > (presumably many?) others too. > > I find it humourous that this thread started because of a 404 error, > something that has nothing to do with OE itself. Anyone could > experience the odd network hickup when downloading so many pacakges > from so many different places. > > Personally I'm quite fond of OE and its relatives (yocto, etc). Oddly > enough, I too have also used many different build systems (including > many self-rolled environments) and OE is the first I've really liked. > > Maybe if people are having so much trouble with OE they could look > into hiring some OE expert to come by and give personal instruction. > For example: > > http://www.intellimetrix.us/embeddedlinux.htm > > This person offers a course which includes OE instruction. Obviously > if he's teaching a course in OE he obviously has years of successful > OE-related experience. Surely someone like that wouldn't be fooled by > something so OE-unrelated such as a 404 error? > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This SF email is sponsosred by: > Try Windows Azure free for 90 days Click Here > http://p.sf.net/sfu/sfd2d-msazure > _______________________________________________ > gumstix-users mailing list > gum...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gumstix-users but what about those that have other issues? It is not just everyone who is having issues is only having 404 errors. And to me if he can clone manually why would bitbake fail continuously in cloning the repo? Seems to be more to it than just only 404, but that is me. He also stated that he has gone through other issues as well, as many of us do. I stated in mine as me being the minority in not being able to reproduce a working OE environment that consistently works, I do not have this issue with setting up other environments. If they break its usually because of me and can sort it out relatively quickly. I do not think anyone has said OE is bad, just a difficult platform to work with that gives varying results. I dont see how asking for other alternatives is really going to throw off a reader of this thread or make them not use OE. |
From: Daniel P. <da...@ro...> - 2012-03-22 22:15:22
|
I agree with Trevor. Despite all the challenges involved with learning (*and using*) OE, I've found it incredibly useful in managing multiple Linux distributions. Plus there's a good community of people willing to answer questions! I'm not saying OpenEmbedded is perfect (it has many, many quirks), but it's pretty darn good. It would be absolutely astounding if such a large and active project didn't occasionally suffer from bug attacks. Thanks very much to the core OE developers! /daniel RoadNarrows LLC http://roadnarrows.com On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Trevor Woerner <two...@gm...> wrote: > I guess maybe I need to speak up for the (silent?) majority (?) for > whom OE works? > > Someone casually stumbling on this thread (and other such rants) might > think OE doesn't work for anybody. It works fine for me and > (presumably many?) others too. > > I find it humourous that this thread started because of a 404 error, > something that has nothing to do with OE itself. Anyone could > experience the odd network hickup when downloading so many pacakges > from so many different places. > > Personally I'm quite fond of OE and its relatives (yocto, etc). Oddly > enough, I too have also used many different build systems (including > many self-rolled environments) and OE is the first I've really liked. > > Maybe if people are having so much trouble with OE they could look > into hiring some OE expert to come by and give personal instruction. > For example: > > http://www.intellimetrix.us/embeddedlinux.htm > > This person offers a course which includes OE instruction. Obviously > if he's teaching a course in OE he obviously has years of successful > OE-related experience. Surely someone like that wouldn't be fooled by > something so OE-unrelated such as a 404 error? > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This SF email is sponsosred by: > Try Windows Azure free for 90 days Click Here > http://p.sf.net/sfu/sfd2d-msazure > _______________________________________________ > gumstix-users mailing list > gum...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gumstix-users > |
From: Dan N. <Dan...@ro...> - 2012-03-23 07:50:27
|
I've found the recent comments regarding OE interesting in light of my first forays into it. I'm trying to figure out how the kernel gets built. Bitbake virtual/kernel I think the virtual in the above command means virtually impossible to find the starting point and follow the build process. First question, what's the starting point in this process? How does it proceed? I can't seem to find anything useful in the doco. I guess it ends up using one of the recipes somewhere in recipes/linux, but which one? What kernel source does it use? (Maybe from linux-sakoman_2.6.35.bb or linux-omap3_2.6.39.bb?) All references to Sakoman builds are 2.6.x, but the build is 3.0.0? What patches does it apply and where are they? What defconfig does it use? My aim is to eventually build some kernel modules. Going home for the weekend. Dan |
From: Alex G. <al...@al...> - 2012-03-26 23:37:19
|
On 23/03/2012 8:49 AM, Trevor Woerner wrote: > I guess maybe I need to speak up for the (silent?) majority (?) for > whom OE works? > > Someone casually stumbling on this thread (and other such rants) might > think OE doesn't work for anybody. It works fine for me and > (presumably many?) others too. > > I find it humourous that this thread started because of a 404 error, > something that has nothing to do with OE itself. Anyone could > experience the odd network hickup when downloading so many pacakges > from so many different places. > > Personally I'm quite fond of OE and its relatives (yocto, etc). Oddly > enough, I too have also used many different build systems (including > many self-rolled environments) and OE is the first I've really liked. > > Maybe if people are having so much trouble with OE they could look > into hiring some OE expert to come by and give personal instruction. > For example: > > http://www.intellimetrix.us/embeddedlinux.htm > > This person offers a course which includes OE instruction. Obviously > if he's teaching a course in OE he obviously has years of successful > OE-related experience. Surely someone like that wouldn't be fooled by > something so OE-unrelated such as a 404 error? > +1. OE works for me. Have spent more time than I would have liked to, learning it. But thats the breaks (have spent similar amounts of time on xilinx's tools - lot better than they used to be) I much prefer having a fully customisable build system than a limited one or being dependent on a distro. But it would be nice for gumstix to switch to yocto rather than having to have a separate oe build just for gumstix as having more than one copy of oe on one machine can be painfulful at times (Using gumstix , beagleboard, pandaboard and few others). Alex |
From: Rich M. <ric...@gm...> - 2012-03-22 22:18:24
|
If it helps, I am using arch arm too but no OTG issue. Are you using their linux-omap kernel? What sort of OTG trouble have you experienced? -- Rich On Mar 22, 2012, at 4:10 PM, j <vwy...@gm...> wrote: > On 03/22/2012 12:58 PM, digital_wiz wrote: >> As has been expressed in another thread I started, OpenEmbedded has been a >> great source of frustration to a great many people. So what are these >> frustrated people doing instead of OE? What are the feasible alternatives? >> >> Doug >> >> >> -- >> View this message in context: http://gumstix.8.n6.nabble.com/Alternatives-to-OpenEmbedded-tp4646244p4646244.html >> Sent from the Gumstix mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> This SF email is sponsosred by: >> Try Windows Azure free for 90 days Click Here >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/sfd2d-msazure >> _______________________________________________ >> gumstix-users mailing list >> gum...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gumstix-users > I have been using mostly ArchArm, with a custom 3.2 Kernel (not fully > working yet OTG is the last thing for me to get working, properly), but > my 3.0 is still fully working. I had to go the custom kernel route as > they say they "support" the overo but its minimal at best at this point. > Their build environment is done differently (makepkg) and has its own > pluses and minuses. distcc being the biggest pain, it was working for me > for over a year and recently broke and have not been able to fix it yet. > Which is what brought me back to trying to build OE again, figuring > after not trying for almost 2 years things would be more consistent. I > have tried numerous times now and previously to get things fully working > with hit and miss results. I have been using it thought to build my MLO > and u-boot.bin. I was gone from everything for about 9 months after some > frustration with OE and when I started research again I chose on trying > ArchArm and have been happier with that over a longer period of time > than dealing with the OE. But I seem to be in the minority, since I can > not create the same build environments that others seem to, which > baffles me. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This SF email is sponsosred by: > Try Windows Azure free for 90 days Click Here > http://p.sf.net/sfu/sfd2d-msazure > _______________________________________________ > gumstix-users mailing list > gum...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gumstix-users |
From: j <vwy...@gm...> - 2012-03-22 22:46:40
|
On 03/22/2012 03:18 PM, Rich Malavon wrote: > If it helps, I am using arch arm too but no OTG issue. Are you using their linux-omap kernel? What sort of OTG trouble have you experienced? > > -- > Rich > > On Mar 22, 2012, at 4:10 PM, j<vwy...@gm...> wrote: > >> On 03/22/2012 12:58 PM, digital_wiz wrote: >>> As has been expressed in another thread I started, OpenEmbedded has been a >>> great source of frustration to a great many people. So what are these >>> frustrated people doing instead of OE? What are the feasible alternatives? >>> >>> Doug >>> >>> >>> -- >>> View this message in context: http://gumstix.8.n6.nabble.com/Alternatives-to-OpenEmbedded-tp4646244p4646244.html >>> Sent from the Gumstix mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> This SF email is sponsosred by: >>> Try Windows Azure free for 90 days Click Here >>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/sfd2d-msazure >>> _______________________________________________ >>> gumstix-users mailing list >>> gum...@li... >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gumstix-users >> I have been using mostly ArchArm, with a custom 3.2 Kernel (not fully >> working yet OTG is the last thing for me to get working, properly), but >> my 3.0 is still fully working. I had to go the custom kernel route as >> they say they "support" the overo but its minimal at best at this point. >> Their build environment is done differently (makepkg) and has its own >> pluses and minuses. distcc being the biggest pain, it was working for me >> for over a year and recently broke and have not been able to fix it yet. >> Which is what brought me back to trying to build OE again, figuring >> after not trying for almost 2 years things would be more consistent. I >> have tried numerous times now and previously to get things fully working >> with hit and miss results. I have been using it thought to build my MLO >> and u-boot.bin. I was gone from everything for about 9 months after some >> frustration with OE and when I started research again I chose on trying >> ArchArm and have been happier with that over a longer period of time >> than dealing with the OE. But I seem to be in the minority, since I can >> not create the same build environments that others seem to, which >> baffles me. >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> This SF email is sponsosred by: >> Try Windows Azure free for 90 days Click Here >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/sfd2d-msazure >> _______________________________________________ >> gumstix-users mailing list >> gum...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gumstix-users > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This SF email is sponsosred by: > Try Windows Azure free for 90 days Click Here > http://p.sf.net/sfu/sfd2d-msazure > _______________________________________________ > gumstix-users mailing list > gum...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gumstix-users No I am on a custom kernel as I do not find their omap kernel has everything configured for the overo and the expansion boards I use properly and they also do not have all the overo related patches in the config they do. They pull their patchset from rcn-ee off the sid distro. It sort of works things are just not being initiliazed properly. It some setting I have not tweaked correctly yet. I am also running 3.2.12. I have PKGBUILDS for DSP related things and full DSP support in the kernel all working. Do you use distcc? If so what is the other OS you are building off of for the cross compile? Also if you are I would love to discuss some distcc offlist as I am sure it would just be noise on this board. OE I find is not always that helpful, my OE breakage has had 0 answers on this board and the OE board and they fail to build on mainline OE and overo OE. |
From: Greg K. <gk...@ya...> - 2012-03-22 22:19:41
|
>I find it humourous that this thread started because of a 404 error, >something that has nothing to do with OE itself. But 404 (and similar) errors do have to do with OE. I don't think I've ever done starting-from-scratch Angstrom build without having an issue with several of the myriad servers it draws upon. 404 errors, slightly changed CRC codes, etc. But OE works wonderfully for me. I believe the problem is one of poor documentation, poor expectation management, and poor error reporting from the shell. The directory names and structures can be odd (everything important ends up in a directory called 'tmp' ??) I learned it by inspection of the system itself. And it takes time, and requires a pretty solid core understanding of many aspects of linux distros, cross-compiling, and many of the tools used by OE. I started on OE thinking I could get my own custom Angstrom in a day or two, when really it took me weeks to traverse the learning curve. But, in the end, I'm glad I stuck it out for those few weeks, and it's been pretty smooth sailing since. Greg |
From: Brad M. <bmi...@gm...> - 2012-03-22 22:32:54
|
Pulseaudio is not set up properly with wired hardware and Bluetooth hardware for one. These are things that are worked out on other desktop systems by the distro folks are easy to take for granted. I'm trying to figure out where in the pulse/hal/bluez stack it needs patching and configuring. -- Brad Midgley |
From: digital_wiz <do...@in...> - 2012-03-23 04:38:45
|
Trevor Woerner-6 wrote > > I guess maybe I need to speak up for the (silent?) majority (?) for > whom OE works? > > Someone casually stumbling on this thread (and other such rants) might > think OE doesn't work for anybody. It works fine for me and > (presumably many?) others too. > > I find it humourous that this thread started because of a 404 error, > something that has nothing to do with OE itself. Anyone could > experience the odd network hickup when downloading so many pacakges > from so many different places. > > Personally I'm quite fond of OE and its relatives (yocto, etc). Oddly > enough, I too have also used many different build systems (including > many self-rolled environments) and OE is the first I've really liked. > > Maybe if people are having so much trouble with OE they could look > into hiring some OE expert to come by and give personal instruction. > For example: > > http://www.intellimetrix.us/embeddedlinux.htm > > This person offers a course which includes OE instruction. Obviously > if he's teaching a course in OE he obviously has years of successful > OE-related experience. Surely someone like that wouldn't be fooled by > something so OE-unrelated such as a 404 error? > OK, full disclosure here. I'm Intellimetrix. And yes, the description of my embedded Linux class does include a mention of OpenEmbedded. But the reality is I spend about 15 to 20 minutes describing OE and that's as far as we go. Now that I have actually succeeded in building an OE system, I'm inspired to expand my material. -- View this message in context: http://gumstix.8.n6.nabble.com/Alternatives-to-OpenEmbedded-tp4646244p4647435.html Sent from the Gumstix mailing list archive at Nabble.com. |
From: Tuomas K. <tu...@ku...> - 2012-03-23 07:53:13
|
I've never liked OE much either so I've used ALIP (selfmade at Movial for ARM, now deprecated) and then MeeGo, which now also deprecated. Next "distro" for me will be Mer[1]. It's something comparable to MeeGo Core OS so it still needs the hardware adaptation layer from somewhere and the UI. I guess there's no proper HAL for Gumstix yet, so I'm hoping to find the time to start with that at some point. My goals would be to have video encoding, networking, and some GPIO/SPI/I2C stuff for robotics. In Mer the packages are built in OBS "build farm" in general but it will be possible to cross compile stuff using Scratchbox2. That part is still on a beta level but it is already possible to use it. [1]http://wiki.merproject.org/wiki/ -- Tuomas |
From: Bob F. <bob...@ra...> - 2012-03-23 08:44:13
|
I have used OE for Overo and BeagleBoard. When it works, its great. When it doesn't work, bugs are very difficult to find. I suspect the architecture and capability is very good, however the documentation is very poor. The syntax of every command is well described, but there is almost zero documentation to tell you how to use OE or how to write recipes for it. Rather than replace OE, I suggest that someone write a user's guide for it (not a reference manual). I would pay $40 (The Barnes and Nobel price for computer books) for one. Regards, Bob On 3/22/2012 9:38 PM, digital_wiz wrote: > Trevor Woerner-6 wrote >> I guess maybe I need to speak up for the (silent?) majority (?) for >> whom OE works? >> >> Someone casually stumbling on this thread (and other such rants) might >> think OE doesn't work for anybody. It works fine for me and >> (presumably many?) others too. >> >> I find it humourous that this thread started because of a 404 error, >> something that has nothing to do with OE itself. Anyone could >> experience the odd network hickup when downloading so many pacakges >> from so many different places. >> >> Personally I'm quite fond of OE and its relatives (yocto, etc). Oddly >> enough, I too have also used many different build systems (including >> many self-rolled environments) and OE is the first I've really liked. >> >> Maybe if people are having so much trouble with OE they could look >> into hiring some OE expert to come by and give personal instruction. >> For example: >> >> http://www.intellimetrix.us/embeddedlinux.htm >> >> This person offers a course which includes OE instruction. Obviously >> if he's teaching a course in OE he obviously has years of successful >> OE-related experience. Surely someone like that wouldn't be fooled by >> something so OE-unrelated such as a 404 error? >> > OK, full disclosure here. I'm Intellimetrix. And yes, the description of > my embedded Linux class does include a mention of OpenEmbedded. But the > reality is I spend about 15 to 20 minutes describing OE and that's as far as > we go. Now that I have actually succeeded in building an OE system, I'm > inspired to expand my material. > > -- > View this message in context: http://gumstix.8.n6.nabble.com/Alternatives-to-OpenEmbedded-tp4646244p4647435.html > Sent from the Gumstix mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This SF email is sponsosred by: > Try Windows Azure free for 90 days Click Here > http://p.sf.net/sfu/sfd2d-msazure > _______________________________________________ > gumstix-users mailing list > gum...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gumstix-users > |
From: thor F. <tho...@ya...> - 2012-03-23 11:14:17
|
I'd also love to know the answers to these questions. And tying into the "OE Alternative" thread.... one of one most frustrating things I've confronted with OE and Bitbake is that once you've pulled and built all of the bits (yes, it can be _very_ painful), it's not clear how you can twiddle the kernel/OS bits and rebuild it locally (not natively compile from a discrete set of sources). If I could append a question to Dan's list for the OE intelligentsia: How does one customize and rebuild the kernel after you've started down the long and winding OE road? tks. ________________________________ From: Dan Nelson <Dan...@ro...> To: General mailing list for gumstix users. <gum...@li...> Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 3:50 AM Subject: [Gumstix-users] Building The Kernel I've found the recent comments regarding OE interesting in light of my first forays into it. I'm trying to figure out how the kernel gets built. Bitbake virtual/kernel I think the virtual in the above command means virtually impossible to find the starting point and follow the build process. First question, what's the starting point in this process? How does it proceed? I can't seem to find anything useful in the doco. I guess it ends up using one of the recipes somewhere in recipes/linux, but which one? What kernel source does it use? (Maybe from linux-sakoman_2.6.35.bb or linux-omap3_2.6.39.bb?) All references to Sakoman builds are 2.6.x, but the build is 3.0.0? What patches does it apply and where are they? What defconfig does it use? My aim is to eventually build some kernel modules. Going home for the weekend. Dan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF email is sponsosred by: Try Windows Azure free for 90 days Click Here http://p.sf.net/sfu/sfd2d-msazure _______________________________________________ gumstix-users mailing list gum...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gumstix-users |
From: Trevor W. <two...@gm...> - 2012-03-23 14:41:53
|
All of these questions (and more) are answered here on Scott Ellis' web pages: http://jumpnowtek.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=46&Itemid=54 |
From: Geoffrey A. <geo...@gm...> - 2012-03-23 17:28:02
|
I have found this useful as well: http://www.openembedded.org/wiki/Kernel_Building On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Trevor Woerner <two...@gm...> wrote: > All of these questions (and more) are answered here on Scott Ellis' web > pages: > > > http://jumpnowtek.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=46&Itemid=54 > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > This SF email is sponsosred by: > Try Windows Azure free for 90 days Click Here > http://p.sf.net/sfu/sfd2d-msazure > _______________________________________________ > gumstix-users mailing list > gum...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gumstix-users > |