Re: MIPS vs MIPS32 tunings -- summary and questions

[Andreas Oberritter <obi@opendreambox.org>]

On 18.04.2012 14:45, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 14:08 +0200, Andreas Oberritter wrote:
>> On 18.04.2012 14:00, Richard Purdie wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 13:54 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote:
>>>> I had a lot of those (e.g. because armv7a-vfp-neon was including 20
>>>> arm*feed.conf variants in /etc/opkg most of them empty - without
>>>> Packages.gz).
>>>>
>>>> So I've added "filter" to distro-feed-configs
>>>> http://git.shr-project.org/git/?p=meta-smartphone.git;a=commit;h=236aa553bb0f82f741c6edb793e96f421f24f4fa
>>>> to add only feeds I'm generating (and I also don't want armv5* packages
>>>> installed on armv7a-vfp-neon target unless user explicitly adds armv5*
>>>> feed).
>>>
>>> This is the better solution. I think we need to get a better default
>>> feed-config generation mechanism into the core. Distros may still need
>>> to tweak it but it would be good to share some of the best practises...
>>
>> Did you look at the patch? Which default setting of
>> SUPPORTED_EXTRA_ARCHS do you suggest?
> 
> I did. I didn't say the above patch was a perfect solution.
> 
>>  Do you think it's feasible to add
>> every single downloadable arch to this variable? If a user of my distro
>> decides to build it for some arm or x86 cpu, should he need to know
>> which archs to add at this place?
> 
> This is a place where the build system meets and interfaces with the
> distro. No one policy in the build system is going to fit every distro's
> needs, not should we ever aim to so.

At least we should have defaults that actually work for someone. Now we
don't and considering that distro-feed-configs.bb is the only place
where PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS is actually used, this would be very easy to
accomplish. Especially because it worked well by default before Mark
broke it.

I guess it's indeed better to just override the necessary bits in my
distro instead of trying to get working defaults upstream.

Regards,
Andreas