On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Chris Larson <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Does the above seem reasonable? If so I'll try to get started on that...
>
> That seems reasonable to me, for what that's worth. I could see
> simplifying the way the powerpc stuff works in the future, but at
> least we'd have something functional for now as well. It keeps primary
> responsibility for TUNE_PKGARCH in arch-powerpc*.inc, which is as it
> should be -- the arch knows best how to manage it. I'm curious to hear
> Matthew's perspective on this.
This is fine with me, I just did not like setting
TUNE_FEATURES = foo
only to have
TUNE_ARCH = ${@bb.utils.contains("TUNE_FEATURES", "foo", "foo",
"${PPCPKGARCH}", d)}"
when it seemed better to just
TUNE_ARCH = foo
At least I think that was my thought logic, then it went a step
further and thought we could just use TUNE_PKGARCH_tune-$DEFAULTTUNE
since these would be available from multilib anyways...
-M
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
