On Wed, 2011-05-11 at 12:13 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote:
> Op 11 mei 2011, om 11:45 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven:
> > For the uclibc bits, I'm proposing
> > to add:
> >
> > +DEPLOY_DIR_append = "-uclibc"
> > +STAGING_DIR_TARGET_append = "-uclibc"
> > +STAGING_DIR_HOST_append = "-uclibc"
> > +SSTATE_MANIFESTS_append = "-uclibc"
> >
> > to tclibc-uclibc.inc.
>
> Can we use _append_libc-uclibc = "uclibc" or even plain ${TCLIBC} in a
> generic include file? That would be a lot more readable and fix glibc
> vs eglibc.
Changing uclibc around is ok as its not something that has worked well
in with OE-Core for a while. What I'm trying to avoid is having to bump
all the versions of the sstate files, the sysroot layout and associated
version numbers which is what would have to happen if we change the
eglibc layout :(.
Obviously, if angstrom switches layout its pain for you though so I
suspect someone loses with this either way :/.
> > For the SDK/TOOLCHAIN bits, I need to have a close look at the SDK and
> > figure out what the implications are there as I want to ensure that they
> > can all be parallel installed as well as being in separate tarballs but
> > its something we need to look at.
>
> I needed 'armv5te' and 'armv7a' in the tarball name, so that's how
> this is derived. It matched the OE names, but Khem found some bugs and
> changed it a little.
Makes sense and I see the need, I just want to ensure the tarballs we
have can be parallel installed.
Cheers,
Richard
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
