From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from 93-97-173-237.zone5.bethere.co.uk ([93.97.173.237] helo=tim.rpsys.net) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OURtu-0003rW-66 for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Fri, 02 Jul 2010 00:06:32 +0200 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tim.rpsys.net (8.13.6/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o61M1ick025010 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 2010 23:01:44 +0100 Received: from tim.rpsys.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (tim.rpsys.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 24622-06 for ; Thu, 1 Jul 2010 23:01:40 +0100 (BST) Received: from [192.168.3.10] ([192.168.3.10]) (authenticated bits=0) by tim.rpsys.net (8.13.6/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o61M1d6p025004 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Thu, 1 Jul 2010 23:01:40 +0100 From: Richard Purdie To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2010 23:01:34 +0100 Message-ID: <1278021694.30247.438.camel@rex> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.3 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rpsys.net X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 93.97.173.237 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: rpurdie@rpsys.net X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on discovery X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_DYNAMIC, TVD_RCVD_IP autolearn=no version=3.2.5 X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:20:07 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on linuxtogo.org) Subject: Re: [RFC} Disable multilib in gcc recipes X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 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: Thu, 01 Jul 2010 22:06:32 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 00:14 -0700, Khem Raj wrote: > I would like to propose to remove building multilib with gcc recipes. > It creates problems > and we do not package correct bits on some platforms. As we tend to > build toolchains keeping in mind the machine it is targetting I think > multilib is not that significant > > Concerns ? comments? I'm backing this. Currently multilib is broken and for a good implementation we really needs a ground up proposal for how to handle it well. I'm starting to look into the problem FWIW so I'd appreciate being in the loop in any discussions. Cheers, Richard