Re: [RFC] Bring PREFERRED_LIBC to all distros

[Koen Kooi <k.kooi@student.utwente.nl>]

On 11-05-09 00:36, Tom Rini wrote:
> On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 07:27:42PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> Hello Tom,
>>
>> On Sun, May 10, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Tom Rini<trini@embeddedalley.com>  wrote:
>>> Not too wierd looking?  Otherwise, is there somewhere we can do,
>>> roughly, sort -u, on ${OVERRIDES} ?  And not require a new bitbake for
>>> everyone?

How do you decide which one to drop? The one with a lower or higher 
priority? You can see how that gets real ugly real fast.

>> I belive that we shouldn't add hacks into OE recipes to avoid the
>> requirement of new bitbake. If someone is using dev tree we can assume
>> that this person can also use a development version from bitbake
>> stable branch.
>
> I don't mean a hack to glibc*.bb, but rather changing base.bbclass (and
> anything else) to not blow up if OVERRIDES contains duplicates.  I think
> it's possible to add a python function that does it, but it would have
> to be 'slow' since the fast method is to throw everything into a dict
> and then return the list of keys.  So perhaps it's best to just say
> libc-<foo>  for an additional per-libc override.

libc-<foo> is also a lot clearer in the case of newlib :)

regards,

Koen