On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 12:42 PM, Richard Purdie <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, 2010-03-18 at 18:49 +0100, Koen Kooi wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> On 18-03-10 18:29, Richard Purdie wrote: >> > On Thu, 2010-03-18 at 04:37 +0100, Holger Hans Peter Freyther wrote: >> >> On Thursday 18 March 2010 02:31:11 Douglas Royds wrote: >> >>> - Avoids clashing with the machine override when MACHINE=native >> >>> - bindir_cross similarly renamed for consistency >> >> >> >> Thank you for that much work. I think we established the usage of '-' >> >> instead >> >> of '_' to avoid clashes with the override detection though. >> > >> > I just noticed this problem. It makes me very very nervous to introduce >> > yet another variable naming convention, particularly one we don't use >> > anywhere else :/. >> > >> > Might it be simpler to rename the native machine? Using "native" in the >> > override namespace is asking for trouble :(. >> >> rename it to 'host'?
> > Its still not a good name to have in overrides. We really need something > meaningful but not generic e.g. "localmachine" yeah I would vote for renaming the machine. Some overrides should be respected just for the level of intrusion they have. > > Cheers, > > Richard > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
