David Holland writes: > On Fri, May 01, 2015 at 07:48:37PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote: > > On Fri, May 01, 2015 at 01:58:34PM -0300, Leandro Santi wrote: > > > A quick look at build.sh shows that one of the first things that > > > needs to be done is to map the MACHINE name to the CPU architecture > > > name, i.e. MACHINE_ARCH. I noticed that some ports set > > > MACHINE=MACHINE_ARCH, but some others don't. Which leads me to the > > > following: what are the guidelines for choosing these names? > > > > If reasonably possible, use MACHINE=MACHINE_ARCH=whatever config.guess > > uses for the platform. A lot of the different MACHINE values are due to > > historical reasons annd wouldn't happen again. > > I think keeping evb* for boards makes sense, though.
i dunno. i don't see what it adds. in particular, "evb" means evaluation board, and there are heaps of things in evb* that are *not* evaluation boards, but stuff that might have once been once. i wish we'd just collapse as much as possible back to plain old MACHINE=MACHINE_ARCH=whatever. i just don't see any value or validity in "evb". is ERLITE an evaluation board? what about the RPI or CUBIE* systems? they come pretty complete AFAICT, designed as end-user systems, not what we used to consider as being "evalation boards". .mrg.