From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [81.228.11.159] (helo=pne-smtpout2-sn1.fre.skanova.net) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1JgZSB-0006KK-35 for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Tue, 01 Apr 2008 07:54:39 +0200 Received: from aeglos (217.214.137.124) by pne-smtpout2-sn1.fre.skanova.net (7.3.129) (authenticated as 0706224457) id 47A77FC401371CAB for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Tue, 1 Apr 2008 07:54:36 +0200 Message-ID: <005201c893bc$e53f8860$c973fea9@atmel.com> From: "Ulf Samuelsson" To: References: <200803310907.56781.e.robertson.svg@gmail.com> <200803311134.26764.geoffrey@pager.net> Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 07:45:12 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198 Subject: Re: New OE user question X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 05:54:39 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > Hello, >=20 > On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 6:34 PM, Geoffrey Wossum = 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. >=20 > Now it seems so far Atmel seems to use buildroot a lot as well. >=20 >> 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=20 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,=20 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