Re: New OE user question

["Ulf Samuelsson" <ulf@atmel.com>]

> Hello,
> 
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 6:34 PM, Geoffrey Wossum <geoffrey@pager.net> wrote:
>> On Monday 31 March 2008 11:12:03 am Koen Kooi wrote:
>>
>> > Leon Woestenberg schreef:
>> > | Can someone suggest a saner distribution for this Samsung chip?
>>  > It's an atmel chip, and atmel itself recommends angstrom:
>>  > http://www.linux4sam.org/twiki/bin/view/Linux4SAM/OpenEmbeddedAngstrom
>>
> Whoops on the chip, and yes they do recommend Angstrom when choosing
> OpenEmbedded.
> 
> Now it seems so far Atmel seems to use buildroot a lot as well.
> 
>>  recommend against OE / Angstrom.  Interesting side note, it seems they
>>  recently had to rollback some of their AVR32 gcc patches in the buildroot
>>  mainline because they were breaking stuff there.
>>

There was some minor conflict with the x86, which could probably
be resolved quite easily, but that is not the reason for removing the 
AVR32 patched.

The main problem for the last month is that AVR32 patches are duplicated.
The toolchain patches area about 6-7 MB and it does not make
sense to add bloat for all the buildroot users.

I extended buildroot last year to allow building the AVR32 toolchain using
prepatched sources downloaded separately for the AVR32.
The AVR32 patches recently added, duplicated the prepatched
toolchain, and it is simply not worth it, so I reverted it back to
only support the prepatched toolchain.

The AVR32 linux patches were also duplicated in each board directory, 
and that has also been fixed


> I saw that. I wonder if "there" means uclibc (in case we are affected
> as well), or buildroot specifics (where they break other archs)?


Best Regards
Ulf Samuelsson