On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 7:08 PM, Denys Dmytriyenko <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 06:33:43PM -0800, Khem Raj wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 5:06 PM, Tom Rini <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 16:53 -0800, Philip Balister wrote: >> >> >> >> On 02/23/2010 03:09 PM, Khem Raj wrote: >> >> > On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 2:37 PM, Philip Balister<[email protected]> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> On 02/23/2010 05:51 AM, Jay Snyder wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >>> I was able to build gcc for installation directly onto the OE target >> >> >>> with "bitbake gcc". "bitbake g++" gives me "nothing provides g++". >> >> >>> >> >> >>> What is the magic bitbake command to provide this? >> >> >> >> >> >> bitbake task-sdk-native, and install task-native-sdk. Anyone know why >> >> >> the >> >> >> task creates a package with different name? >> >> > >> >> > may be because >> >> > >> >> > task-sdk-native.bb:RPROVIDES_${PN} = "task-native-sdk" >> >> >> >> I know that :) I am curious why the renaming. >> > >> > And if perhaps we couldn't get a different name altogether? 'native' >> > has a meaning normally that's not what it means here. >> > task-on-device-sdk is a bit wordy, but avoids 'native'. Of course, >> > 'native development' also has a meaning too.. RPROVIDES perhaps? Or is >> > that just the worst of both worlds.. >> >> yeah thats a good point. although native is not as bad but in context >> of OE we already >> assigned native to something that this task does not do. So using something >> like >> what you suggest or task-target-sdk would be nice. > > Speaking of which, a collegue of mine was suggesting exactly the opposite - > "native" should be used exactly for this type of naming, when it's native > development (regardless of whether it's on a target or on a host), and OE's > use of "native" is wrong and should be "host" instead, i.e. "pkgname-host" :) > I know it's a historical naming and cannot be changed easily...
yes if I was to start fresh I would do it this way but as I said before OE uses native to denote something else as of now. If we were to change conventions then I would certainly use the more common naming as you mentioned. > > >> to answer the original question I think RDEPEND was added for fixing >> upgrade channels on existing systems. > > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-devel mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel > _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
