From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from 93-97-173-237.zone5.bethere.co.uk ([93.97.173.237] helo=tim.rpsys.net) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1T9ORE-0004gx-6I for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Thu, 06 Sep 2012 00:51:12 +0200 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tim.rpsys.net (8.13.6/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q85MclGp031121; Wed, 5 Sep 2012 23:38:47 +0100 Received: from tim.rpsys.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (tim.rpsys.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 28994-06; Wed, 5 Sep 2012 23:38:43 +0100 (BST) Received: from [192.168.3.10] ([192.168.3.10]) (authenticated bits=0) by tim.rpsys.net (8.13.6/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q85McdNM031115 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 5 Sep 2012 23:38:41 +0100 Message-ID: <1346884719.21985.133.camel@ted> From: Richard Purdie To: Chris Larson Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2012 23:38:39 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: <32CDFC5F-610C-45E8-A239-A3387A8839FB@dominion.thruhere.net> <1346845447.21985.50.camel@ted> <1346879977.21985.88.camel@ted> X-Mailer: Evolution 3.2.3-0ubuntu6 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rpsys.net Cc: Koen Kooi , Zhenfeng.Zhao@windriver.com, openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] package_ipk.bbclass: use "--force-arch" when install package X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list 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, 05 Sep 2012 22:51:12 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 2012-09-05 at 15:19 -0700, Chris Larson wrote: > On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Richard Purdie > wrote: > > What I really need here is help with coming up with some working > > solution. Putting our heads in the sand and arguing whether its even a > > problem isn't going to go anywhere :(. > > This doesn't make any sense. Deciding whether something is or isn't an > actual problem / is or isn't expected behavior is a good thing to be > doing, and is the opposite of putting heads in the sand, as it's > debating user expectations vs tool behavior. If you really think it's > better to blindly make changes before figuring out how the tool should > behave relative to user expectations, or think figuring out what > should be done first is "putting our heads in the sand", then This isn't what I was suggesting and is misinterpretation. Given the following comment I'm not sure its worth taking the discuss further. > I think > we have serious problems with you in charge of the project. Your opinion is duly noted, thanks ;-). Cheers, Richard