COMPILE_FEATURES?

COMPILE_FEATURES?

[Koen Kooi]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

[18:50] koen: hrw: MACHINE_FEATURES = "thumb", yes or no?
[18:50] koen: ehm
[18:51] hrw: koen: arm-thumb you mean?
[18:51] koen: COMBINED_FEATURES
[18:51] koen: afaik there is only one thumb
[18:51] koen: like iwmmxt
[18:51] hrw: koen: and all arms newer then arm4 supports it...
[18:51] koen: armv4
[18:52] koen: my goal is to be able to flag certain package (e.g. samba) to build with
thumb like we do with iwmmxt now
[18:53] hrw: time for COMPILE_FEATURES maybe?
[18:53] hrw: COMPILE_FEATURES = "thumb iwmmxt"
[18:53] hrw: or ARCH_FEATURES
[18:53] koen: that starts to look an awfull lot like use flags, though

any ideas how we can draft a standard way to solve problems like this both compile time
and package time?

regards,

Koen
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFHFj6uMkyGM64RGpERAjF1AJ9Mcag6hqeZPTUS845IpFNNxXB1rgCeM1hI
ceuQr0BTK+4CA8wHedroSl0=
=CajS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: COMPILE_FEATURES?

[Craig Hughes]

On Oct 17, 2007, at 9:56 AM, Koen Kooi wrote:

> [18:53] koen: that starts to look an awfull lot like use flags, though
>
> any ideas how we can draft a standard way to solve problems like  
> this both compile time
> and package time?

I'm probably missing some background here, but are USE flags a bad  
thing?

C

Re: COMPILE_FEATURES?

[Koen Kooi]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Craig Hughes schreef:
> On Oct 17, 2007, at 9:56 AM, Koen Kooi wrote:
> 
>> [18:53] koen: that starts to look an awfull lot like use flags, though
>>
>> any ideas how we can draft a standard way to solve problems like  
>> this both compile time
>> and package time?
> 
> I'm probably missing some background here, but are USE flags a bad  
> thing?

they are.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFHFmbGMkyGM64RGpERAqvMAJ9H5K5FwvLycRu/BB8T3uPn/ysLGwCeL0/w
+Qz1hJ81VDvogi/i0huppYI=
=wv6M
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: COMPILE_FEATURES?

[Craig Hughes]

On Oct 17, 2007, at 12:47 PM, Koen Kooi wrote:

>> I'm probably missing some background here, but are USE flags a bad
>> thing?
>
> they are.

Ah, thanks.  Now I'm up to speed :)

C

Re: COMPILE_FEATURES?

[Philip Balister]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 584 bytes --]

Craig Hughes wrote:
> On Oct 17, 2007, at 12:47 PM, Koen Kooi wrote:
> 
>>> I'm probably missing some background here, but are USE flags a bad
>>> thing?
>> they are.
> 
> Ah, thanks.  Now I'm up to speed :)

Koen, stop being so elitist ;)

In #oe I extracted the answer as follows, with a use flag type thingy, 
two builds of the same package could have very different packages, 
primarily in the area of dependencies.

Philip

PS: I have no clue what USE flags are, and I am not a packaging guru. 
I'm sure my possible wrong answer will get a better explanation.

[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature, Size: 3303 bytes --]

Re: COMPILE_FEATURES?

[Cliff Brake]

On 10/17/07, Philip Balister <philip@balister.org> wrote:
> In #oe I extracted the answer as follows, with a use flag type thingy,
> two builds of the same package could have very different packages,
> primarily in the area of dependencies.
>
> Philip
>
> PS: I have no clue what USE flags are, and I am not a packaging guru.
> I'm sure my possible wrong answer will get a better explanation.

USE flags are used in Gentoo.  Gentoo and OE somewhat similar in that
they are composed of a bunch of recipes that describe primarily how to
build software, but that's about it.

http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?part=2&chap=2

Bitbake was actually derived from portage:

Chris Larson quote: "it (bitbake) gradually developed a tendency
toward the most flexible
of all implementations, so became a generic task execution and metadata
handling tool that had some remnants from the Gentoo Portage codebase
that it was derived from."

A little more history:
http://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/bitbake-dev/2005-May/000028.html
http://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/bitbake-dev/2005-May/thread.html#29

Cliff

-- 
=======================
Cliff Brake
http://bec-systems.com

Re: COMPILE_FEATURES?

[Craig Hughes]

On Oct 17, 2007, at 9:56 AM, Koen Kooi wrote:

> [18:53] hrw: COMPILE_FEATURES = "thumb iwmmxt"
> [18:53] hrw: or ARCH_FEATURES
> [18:53] koen: that starts to look an awfull lot like use flags, though

Also, I don't think is really is like USE flags.  Well, it's a very  
small subset of USE.  The specification here is simply more fine- 
grained detail on the architecture, and differs from specifying  
CFLAGS I guess only in that some packages will have custom code (like  
hand-written assembler or something) for different architectures.   
This is not definition a change in functionality of the package, but  
just a change in which implementation of the functionality to  
select.  Most USE flags specify a feature set to include/exclude --  
"iwmmxt" or "thumb" don't really change "features", but just the  
implementation details of those features.

C