[yocto] Results from Yocto 1.0.1 Go/No-Go meeting: No-Go

[Fleischer, Julie N]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: yocto-bounces at yoctoproject.org [mailto:yocto-
>bounces at yoctoproject.org] On Behalf Of Elizabeth Flanagan
>Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2011 10:58 AM
>To: yocto at yoctoproject.org
>Subject: Re: [yocto] Results from Yocto 1.0.1 Go/No-Go meeting: No-Go
>
>
>
>On 05/19/2011 10:41 AM, Saul Wold wrote:
>> Investigation is complete.
>>
>> This issue is related to how libzypp constructs a header file in
>bitbake
>> using PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS. In 1.0.1 the PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS was
>> cumulative list defined in both crownbay*.conf and tune-atom.inc.  In
>> 1.1 this was changed to just be set once in the tune-atom.inc.
>>
>> Because it was a cumulative list, it included x86 twice in 1.0.1 and
>> only once and correctly 1.1.
>>
>> So the fix is in the crownbay BSP, and does not affect the core 1.0.1
>> base as we currently have it.  This means no respin or re-test is
>> required of the existing bit.
>>
>> ** Is this sufficient information to change to a "GO", pending the
>> beagleboard testing at this point? **
>>
>> Sau!
>>
>>
>
>I would like to just spin a nightly-external once the beagleboard patch
>gets in, to verify the fix. If the fix gets in
>today, I can have it done before our weekly 1.1-preM1 build.

Sounds great!  If Beth is able to create the Beagleboard image for testing and Jiajun is able to test before Tuesday, we could have another go/no-go discussion during the Technical Team meeting to (hopefully) be able to release 1.0.1 early next week.

I will add that to the Tuesday agenda.

- Julie 

>---------------
>Elizabeth Flanagan
>Yocto Project
>Release Engineer
>_______________________________________________
>yocto mailing list
>yocto at yoctoproject.org
>https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto