Who is the wrt54oe maintainer?

Who is the wrt54oe maintainer?

[Leon Woestenberg]

Hello,

who is the wrt54oe distro maintainer?

It needs love in conf/distro/wrt54oe.conf, as it  isn't up to date
with our external toolchain opt-in, binutils-cross is not locked down,
and the c library was not chosen, nor its version.


PREFERRED_PROVIDERS += " virtual/${TARGET_PREFIX}gcc-initial:gcc-cross-initial"
PREFERRED_PROVIDERS += " virtual/${TARGET_PREFIX}binutils:binutils-cross"
PREFERRED_PROVIDERS += " virtual/${TARGET_PREFIX}gcc:gcc-cross"
PREFERRED_PROVIDERS += " virtual/${TARGET_PREFIX}g++:gcc-cross"
PREFERRED_PROVIDERS += " virtual/${TARGET_PREFIX}libc-for-gcc:uclibc"

PREFERRED_PROVIDERS += " virtual/libc:uclibc"
PREFERRED_PROVIDERS += " linux-libc-headers:linux-libc-headers"

#TODO lockdown?
#PREFERRED_VERSION_binutils-cross = "???"
PREFERRED_VERSION_gcc-cross-initial = "3.4.4"
PREFERRED_VERSION_gcc-cross = "3.4.4"
PREFERRED_VERSION_gcc-cross-sdk = "3.4.4"
PREFERRED_VERSION_gcc = "3.4.4"
PREFERRED_VERSION_uclibc = "0.9.29"


Regards,
-- 
Leon

Re: Who is the wrt54oe maintainer?

[Michael 'Mickey' Lauer]

On Thursday 15 May 2008 00:05:25 Leon Woestenberg wrote:
> who is the wrt54oe distro maintainer?

Unfortunately, there's no one. I always had the hope we could get one of the 
openwrt-fork-maintainers on board. Marcin and me once did some work towards 
having this popular device in OE, but we both could not find enough time to 
keep it up.

> It needs love in conf/distro/wrt54oe.conf, as it  isn't up to date
> with our external toolchain opt-in, binutils-cross is not locked down,
> and the c library was not chosen, nor its version.

Indeed. Could I talk you into adding the necessary bits? If not, feel free to 
move it to nonworking/conf/machine/.

:M:

-- 
Dr. Michael 'Mickey' Lauer | IT-Freelancer | http://www.vanille-media.de

Re: Who is the wrt54oe maintainer?

[Marcin Juszkiewicz]

Dnia niedziela, 18 maja 2008, Michael 'Mickey' Lauer napisał:
> On Thursday 15 May 2008 00:05:25 Leon Woestenberg wrote:
> > who is the wrt54oe distro maintainer?
>
> Unfortunately, there's no one. I always had the hope we could get one
> of the openwrt-fork-maintainers on board. Marcin and me once did some
> work towards having this popular device in OE, but we both could not
> find enough time to keep it up.

wrt54 + wrt54oe was working combo to build packages for OpenWRT 
installation. Today we also have distro config to build such ones with 
OpenWRT provided toolchain.

> > It needs love in conf/distro/wrt54oe.conf, as it  isn't up to date
> > with our external toolchain opt-in, binutils-cross is not locked
> > down, and the c library was not chosen, nor its version.
>
> Indeed. Could I talk you into adding the necessary bits? 

It should be uclibc 0.9.27 (or newer if binary compatible), binutils 2.18, 
gcc 3.4.4.

> If not, feel free to move it to nonworking/conf/machine/.

You mean conf/distro/ dir? I would rather remove it at all if no one is 
going to use it.

-- 
JID: hrw-jabber.org
OpenEmbedded developer/consultant

           Could you please speak more slowly? I'm a masochist
           and I want to prolong the agony of this conversation.

Re: Who is the wrt54oe maintainer?

[Koen Kooi]

Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote:
> Dnia niedziela, 18 maja 2008, Michael 'Mickey' Lauer napisał:
>> On Thursday 15 May 2008 00:05:25 Leon Woestenberg wrote:
>>> who is the wrt54oe distro maintainer?
>> Unfortunately, there's no one. I always had the hope we could get one
>> of the openwrt-fork-maintainers on board. Marcin and me once did some
>> work towards having this popular device in OE, but we both could not
>> find enough time to keep it up.
>
> wrt54 + wrt54oe was working combo to build packages for OpenWRT
> installation. Today we also have distro config to build such ones with
> OpenWRT provided toolchain.
>
>>> It needs love in conf/distro/wrt54oe.conf, as it  isn't up to date
>>> with our external toolchain opt-in, binutils-cross is not locked
>>> down, and the c library was not chosen, nor its version.
>> Indeed. Could I talk you into adding the necessary bits?
>
> It should be uclibc 0.9.27 (or newer if binary compatible), binutils 2.18,
> gcc 3.4.4.

Note that "binary compatible" doesn't mean a lot when using uClibc. If 
you change the defconfig within the same version you can get "binary 
incompatible"[1] results on some or all depending applications.

regards,

Koen

[1] I'm not sure how that effects our site files for autotools.