On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 04:55:50PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Fri, 2011-10-14 at 17:30 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 04:25:16PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: > > > On Fri, 2011-10-14 at 11:46 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote: > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > Just another thing, I'd prefer to have DRIDRIVERS as ?= so machine can > > > > override it. > > > > > > I really wouldn't recommend overriding this on a per machine basis, it > > > needs to be on a per arch basis. This is because the recipe is not > > > machine specific (nor should it be). > > > > > > Configuration therefore falls to the distro, not machine. > > > > Why not make it machine specific only when machine provides own module > > (like the case with glamo on om-gta02)? > > > > Or recipe cannot change PACKAGE_ARCH in some special cases (like > > $MACHINE in path to some file in SRC_URI) anymore? > > It works just fine but its not nice practise in my opinion for a library > like this and I don't see there is any need in this case. Certainly I > don't see it as something OE-Core should be recommending.
So can I send patches adding my glamo.patch to libdrm and mesa-dri so we can add glamo to DRIDRIVERS_armv4t ? -- Martin 'JaMa' Jansa jabber: [email protected]
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
