From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from gate.crashing.org ([63.228.1.57] ident=[U2FsdGVkX19S1XTSLVcRSw099BYG0vcVDrWPc+Nr4KU=]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Qr9lS-0003LO-7j for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 16:28:11 +0200 Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate.crashing.org (8.14.1/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p7AENZG8004306; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 09:23:36 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) From: Kumar Gala In-Reply-To: <4E428C20.5030809@mlbassoc.com> Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 09:23:35 -0500 Message-Id: <003F5792-C038-4996-9D00-AA9E6F4E5151@kernel.crashing.org> References: <1312912632.14274.312.camel@rex> <27DA7A3C-0FE9-43CA-963C-F6217A1D2C9F@kernel.crashing.org> <1312981676.14274.376.camel@rex> <1312982631.14274.379.camel@rex> <4E4288F0.2010904@mlbassoc.com> <1312983621.14274.383.camel@rex> <4E428C20.5030809@mlbassoc.com> To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Subject: Re: populate_sdk: We need to ensure that the SDK sysroot reflects PACKAGE_ARCH X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 14:28:11 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Aug 10, 2011, at 8:48 AM, Gary Thomas wrote: > On 2011-08-10 07:40, Richard Purdie wrote: >> On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 07:34 -0600, Gary Thomas wrote: >>> On a related thought to these changes - how does this play if >>> you use multiple SDKs for different, but somewhat related, = architectures? >>> I'd like to create a simple SDK (just toolchain mostly) using = 'meta-toolchain' >>> for both armv5te and armv7a and install them simultaneously on the = same >>> host. My previous attempts at this fell flat as there were a number = of >>> files marked as "arm" (i.e. not armv5te or arvm7a) that were common = between >>> the two SDK packages, but they didn't seem to be identical. >>=20 >> This is supposed to work but wouldn't due to the issue and the patch >> I've proposed. Whether that is the only issue I don't know. >=20 > I'll be glad to test this once you've worked it out. >=20 >>=20 >> Can you remember which files we're talking about here? >=20 > Not right off - there were just a ton of directories with only arm in = the > path that seemed to be architecture dependent. I think it's all = related to > TARGET_SYS vs MULTIMACH_TARGET_SYS and how/where they are used. >=20 >>=20 >>> With these changes, will it be possible to support such sets of = multiple >>> toolchains? (No, ADT is not the answer - I just want the = toolchains) >>=20 >> ADT uses meta-toolchain-* so its all related. >=20 > Fair enough, I just don't want to have to use ADT just to install a = toolchain. And this is also something we're wanting to work to allow different PPC = toolchain variants to live together - k=