On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Chris Larson <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 1:22 PM, Phil Blundell <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Thu, 2010-06-10 at 12:55 -0700, Chris Larson wrote: >> > Should this (ipv6 at least) use COMBINED_FEATURES, since it requires >> > kernel/machine support for it to be useful, along with distro support? >> >> I don't think it's machine dependent in any meaningful way; there is, to >> my knowledge, no OE-supported hardware which is actually incapable of >> supporting ipv6. Any distro that wants to use it just needs to make >> sure that the kernel support is present (either built-in or as a module) >> on all the supported targets. In any case, most packages will cope >> gracefully with ipv6 being selected on in the configuration and then >> found to be absent at runtime. >> >> If you start factoring MACHINE_FEATURES into that kind of decision then, >> logically, the package needs to have PACKAGE_ARCH=${MACHINE}. I don't >> think it would be a very good thing to start forcing packages down that >> path unnecessarily. > > > Fair enough, that seems reasonable for this particular case. Now that you > bring it up, we adjust package arch to machine when we use a machine > specific file:// file, but maybe we need to teach it to check for references > to MACHINE_FEATURES or COMBINED_FEATURES, somehow.
will it force recompile then if I choose a similar arch but different machine say (qemuarm, osk5912 both are armv5te) > -- > Christopher Larson > clarson at kergoth dot com > Founder - BitBake, OpenEmbedded, OpenZaurus > Maintainer - Tslib > Senior Software Engineer, Mentor Graphics > _______________________________________________ > 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
