On 18.04.2012 14:00, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 13:54 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 01:45:54PM +0200, Andreas Oberritter wrote: >>> On 18.04.2012 13:40, Richard Purdie wrote: >>>> On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 13:30 +0200, Andreas Oberritter wrote: >>>>> now, after having repacked all binary tarballs that had mipsel or >>>>> mipsel-nf in their name and contents, and after having changed all >>>>> occurrences of mipsel and mipsel-nf in my local recipes (where >>>>> appropriate), and after having rebuilt everything from scratch again, it >>>>> came to my attention that "mipsel" in PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS breaks opkg, >>>>> because no mipsel packages are being generated. That's what I told >>>>> before, right? >>>> >>>> How is this breaking opkg? We often have architectures listed in there >>>> for which there are no packages generated (all, noarch and any spring to >>>> mind)? >>> >>> Downloading http://10.0.0.1/mipsel/Packages.gz. >>> wget: server returned error: HTTP/1.1 404 Not Found >>> Collected errors: >>> * opkg_download: Failed to download http://10.0.0.1/mipsel/Packages.gz, >>> wget returned 1. >> >> I had a lot of those (e.g. because armv7a-vfp-neon was including 20 >> arm*feed.conf variants in /etc/opkg most of them empty - without >> Packages.gz). >> >> So I've added "filter" to distro-feed-configs >> http://git.shr-project.org/git/?p=meta-smartphone.git;a=commit;h=236aa553bb0f82f741c6edb793e96f421f24f4fa >> to add only feeds I'm generating (and I also don't want armv5* packages >> installed on armv7a-vfp-neon target unless user explicitly adds armv5* >> feed). > > This is the better solution. I think we need to get a better default > feed-config generation mechanism into the core. Distros may still need > to tweak it but it would be good to share some of the best practises...
Did you look at the patch? Which default setting of SUPPORTED_EXTRA_ARCHS do you suggest? Do you think it's feasible to add every single downloadable arch to this variable? If a user of my distro decides to build it for some arm or x86 cpu, should he need to know which archs to add at this place? I don't think that's user-friendly and I don't know what's so bad about removing something that probably hasn't helped anybody. Regards, Andreas _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
