On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 12:02:50PM +0100, Phil Blundell wrote: > On Thu, 2012-09-27 at 13:58 -0500, Mark Hatle wrote: > > I've been an advocate for a while that the processor optimization (CCARGS) > > does > > make it into the PKGARCH. ARMPKGSFX_CPU seems like a reasonable approach > > to do > > this. It allows each tune to set something to tell people what that binary > > is > > really built for, and for the 'base' tunes (i.e. armv5) it can be left off. > > I think we've discussed this before but, just to reiterate, this sort of > thing is a matter of DISTRO policy. It is perfectly legitimate to want > to build binaries with, say, -march=armv5te -mtune=arm926ej-s and have > them end up with PACKAGE_ARCH="armv5te" or even just "arm". > > It seems to me that we are in danger of adding a lot of complicated and > hard-to-understand machinery to oe-core in an attempt to solve a problem > that ought to be getting solved by the DISTRO, and that by doing so we > might be making life harder rather than easier for DISTROs which happen > to want a slightly different labelling model to the default.
That's already there with DEFAULTUNE/AVAILTUNES machinery, isn't it? Having that with better default values doesn't make things worse for such DISTROs. Cheers, -- 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
