On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 10:15 AM, Otavio Salvador <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 15:30, Khem Raj <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Maybe it would be better to introduce EGLIBC_FEATURES and >>> BUSYBOX_FEATURES, possibly presetting some values with options already >>> present in DISTRO_FEATURES. >>> >> >> I think it can get to many knobs and confusion in settings. With >> system library any feature en|disable >> is system wide so having it as a distro policy is right way to go imo. > > We can use DISTRO_EGLIBC_FEATURES or DISTRO_LIBC_FEATURES (so we can > add to uclibc support for it too). Spliting it from DISTRO_FEATURES > makes sense IMO since we'd use the same concept to recipes (as > busybox) that are ofthen customized.
so what would be difference between DISTRO_FEATURES and DISTRO_EGLIBC_FEATURES and what will be their relation > > -- > Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems > E-mail: [email protected] http://www.ossystems.com.br > Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854 http://projetos.ossystems.com.br > > _______________________________________________ > 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
