On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Tom Rini <[email protected]> wrote: > On 07/21/2011 09:48 AM, Khem Raj wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 5:17 AM, Kumar Gala <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> Why do we have a split between powerpc-common & powerpc-linux? >>> >>> I assume powerpc-linux is used and picked up for powerpc-linux-uclibc in >>> addition to normal powerpc-linux. >>> >>> I'm looking at adding powerpc64 support and powerpc-common is all kinda of >>> broken for it. I'd like to just merge powerpc-common & powerpc-linux (as >>> powerpc-linux 32-bit) for now and start a new powerpc-common that refactors >>> 32/64 commonalities. >>> >>> Unless someone says otherwise about the meaning of these files. >> >> powerpc-common is shared between uclibc and eglibc at present and may >> be shared with other OSes that may build with OE in future. >> traditionally powerpc-common implicitly implied 32bit so I am not >> surprised if its broken for ppc64. You could add powerpc64-common >> and leave 32bit alone. See how its done for mips64 in oe.dev >> >> http://git.openembedded.org/cgit.cgi/openembedded/tree/site > > I'd argue that what we do for mips today is also wrong and I'm going to > try and fix it as soon as I can. In these cases we should have: > common, common-linux, common-$libc, mips-common, mips-linux, > mips64-linux and if needed mips64-linux-libc.
yes that structure would be desirable. It would need a bit of overhaul and lot of testing. since you have something setup for your import from oe stuff for same. may be you can take a stab at it > > But I suspect some of the above won't exist, and that's OK. > > -- > Tom Rini > Mentor Graphics Corporation > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-core mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core > _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
