On 01/22/2013 06:13 PM, Mark Hatle wrote:
> On 1/22/13 6:18 AM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
>> > Commit c04f5435 "populate_sdk_base.bbclass: use SDK_ARCH instead
>> > of SDKMACHINE" prevents not only the installation of 64 bit SDK
>> > configurations on 32 bit hosts (which indeed cannot work), but also
>> > the legitimate installation of a 32 bit SDK on a 64 bit host.
>> >
>> > Fix this.
>> >
>> > While there, also make sure we use the same patterns ("i[3-6]86" resp.
>> > "x86[-_]64" to get unified strings for both INST_ARCH and SDK_ARCH.
> As far as I am aware, this is intentional. For various SDK items
> pseudo/libpseudo may be used. On a 32-bit SDK, only a 32-bit
> pseudo/libpseudo
> is available. This will prevent it from working with any host system
> binaries
> that are x86_64.
>
> If you don't care, the "workaround" is to use setarch and install it by
> telling
> the system you are an ix86 target.
>
> --Mark
>
>> >
Hi Mark,
There was a discussion on the yocto mailing list about this:
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/pipermail/yocto/2013-January/013889.html
Also, a bug filed:
https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3770
It turns out that people would like to be able to install 32-bit SDKs on
64-bit machines. Provided they have the 32-bit libraries in place.
Thanks,
Laurentiu
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
