On 02/25/2011 06:28 PM, Khem Raj wrote: > On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 4:11 AM, Andreas Oberritter > <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 02/25/2011 08:51 AM, Khem Raj wrote: >>> Well one way is to have kernel headers per machine which means you can >>> not share target packages anymore since they have to build per machine >>> but it would be much integrated solution and we could generate the >>> kernel headers from the kernel recipe itself so we are sure that the >>> .config of kernel headers match the .config of kernel itself >>> downside is it will defeat the multimachine sharing packages a bit. >> >> The .config does not have any influence on the generated > > yes thats right > >> linux-libc-headers by definition. linux-libc-headers must not contain >> any CONFIG_* statements, because they are meant to be independent of it. >> The kernel config is not available to linux-libc-headers after all. >> >> The point I was trying to make is that feature detection at compile time >> is impossible, if the feature can be disabled by the kernel config >> (which is the case for epoll and inotify, which in turn were the >> examples discussed on the mailing list in May 2010). You need to do >> runtime tests in programs intended to be portable. > > which may not be easy to do for cross compiled packages unless they are > patches > to make this test dynamic
That doesn't make any sense. Runtime tests aren't affected by any cross compilation issues. Runtime tests are dynamic by nature. Regards, Andreas _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
