Re: Proposed Multilib Implementation Brainstorming

[Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Wed, 2011-04-06 at 10:47 +0200, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
> I think most embedded systems would only use one lib. To take your
> lib/lib64 example:
> If I am developing for an embedded system I know whether it will run
> as 32 or 64 bit, so there is no need to have both.

I agree that this is the most common usecase and that remains unchanged.

> multilib has its merits when it comes to supporting multiple hardware systems.
> However as in the embedded world one is typically targeting a specific
> hardware configuration.
> (actually I don't recall having seen requests for multilib on the ML
> before, although I could have missed it).

These have been requests I've received verbally in general but you'll
see from the replies on the mailing list, Montavista is interested, Koen
is as are a number of others.

> Also I'm somewhat worried by the actual complexity this adds (to the
> build process and the recipes, and timewise probably also to the
> bootstrap process as additional packages have to be built).
> 
> Not sure if that is a desirable route forward, but if we (we as in OE
> members + developers) feel that OE should go that way, I would
> sugggest to have a way to opt-in or opt-out

Multilib will be opt-in. Things will operate just as they do today
unless you specify you want a multilib configuration.

Cheers,

Richard