Re: [PATCH V2] allarch.bbclass: Set FEED_ARCH to original value of BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH and then set BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH to 'all'

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

On Wed, 2011-06-15 at 12:37 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote:
> Op 15 jun 2011, om 12:22 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven:
> 
> > On Wed, 2011-06-15 at 12:15 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote:
> >> Op 15 jun 2011, om 12:07 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven:
> > I know, but we have two choices:
> > 
> > a) Continue this spiral of confusing variable names, conflict and wacky 
> >   bugs
> > 
> > b) Come up with a plan to address it and roll it out
> > 
> > I'm favouring b), particularly since this would help several different
> > architectures with a variety of issues. If we need to better document
> > that and have a process fine, but that is not a good argument for not
> > doing it at all.
> 
> I agree on that, put previous efforts in the yocto universe were
> rushed through (like the machine-name -> machine_name change I keep
> going on about), so I have a knee jerk reaction to such things
> nowadays. For various reasons yocto and later oe-core have not been
> friendly to distros having package feeds out there. Sometimes the
> changes made things better, but they were still painfull. It seems to
> be getting better nowadays, which is good, but everyone still needs to
> be carefull. Pet peeve: missing PR bumps.

Well, I think everyone is trying to improve, trying to do better and
hopefully we are learning from any mistakes made.

> What I need for angstrom is a variable that:For 
> 
> 1) *never* changes its value

As I've mentioned several times, I think it is reasonable to allarch to
clear or otherwise invalidate such a variable. That is a very special
case though and setting it to "all" was perhaps a poor choice of value.

> 2) holds the base arch (armv7a, ppc603e, etc)

Sounds like BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH

> 3) Is set in *all* the tune include files

Again sounds like BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH. Can it not default to TARGET_ARCH?

Grepping the tune files in OE-Core we seem to be pretty good about this
right now.

> 4) must be set to complete parsing when MACHINE is set

I suspect this doesn't give as much value as you'd think but I'm
indifferent.

> I don't care if it's in overrides by default or not since that's easy
> enough to do in distro configs.

Is this a decision the machine/tune files should make or the distro
though?

Cheers,

Richard