From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-io0-f174.google.com (mail-io0-f174.google.com [209.85.223.174]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 899BA77CE8 for ; Tue, 11 Apr 2017 18:28:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-io0-f174.google.com with SMTP id r16so11633221ioi.2 for ; Tue, 11 Apr 2017 11:28:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=intel-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to:references :organization:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=jc+Hbm4G7lSoPXEEqrnbMDQ252OsiR8VIeSfQr2hFeQ=; b=kSK2SMyoEJ17YQ8Y6Om/+9qRf75/o82dBjpP1WiO2Foo6dNnr0x2xKj7L2u5sSxR7s R6Law7BJHXI92ilP4NKcACLS5EMRoOzSfsFTdzzQkqN3Hb/jKRlnRFPfHGo+IGvnkBlS VI+a7vX3jiTykxLIX6u/hRgtASpPk1QuduQzvwnB4ycCMOUqde+Vj4dFu6vROJ7/HDnw 1j5hoq1ptwA0Tsaj5TQwM4ruCmTNuLl0dWGT2dn8p63UKP7Tsw7419WWyvf2RCPBNZPe gL6WTeiyXB6NS8R/XL1kVYO8/ga9kPj3snHQ95dxSQpVqIYudlm/bVeMiU9DaAHgEBVX ldeQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to :references:organization:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=jc+Hbm4G7lSoPXEEqrnbMDQ252OsiR8VIeSfQr2hFeQ=; b=FTQpYrCrbg86Tf1j2ffUiJfwOS6qXYAfyN+IY4Lh0u1gbOJk5HIqpNaNi6gkXsmQEo sZYZnt3YOfYyF4K8UZoQwr/JD0jFXOt//a+ooBHDGMUOHXJTsdhFZgDV4S89zZh/YOdK gSxiN6Mxc6cS8QMPq1vLhvdz5VTrHJgR6MZputpnon1hQd9YIPPmoRHrBj93Bq3Gkhq6 Em3Gan4x/gVRotIxiho+JTelRZZhx3/kACHo0W0+b7aChYxyo+qgvhqWiRM4gq4IYZYg 9f3KfRZ7VYxasS2a2NMTERu+5tDaJb+tnE4tN3yfqwqowYgR/0LbA54LG84Fj5cuhOLx avcg== X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/4pm0tnb5Wg32t8bDfSTl1eGpw0A9GHtZJiZC2SIOrQzkj24jyKwbFn+ImFUPMFOqK4 X-Received: by 10.36.12.65 with SMTP id 62mr10120866itn.16.1491935325432; Tue, 11 Apr 2017 11:28:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pohly-mobl1 (p5DE8D3A2.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [93.232.211.162]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m133sm1947983ioe.61.2017.04.11.11.28.42 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 11 Apr 2017 11:28:43 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <1491935320.10884.209.camel@intel.com> From: Patrick Ohly To: Richard Purdie Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 20:28:40 +0200 In-Reply-To: <1491935153.12091.37.camel@linuxfoundation.org> References: <1491935153.12091.37.camel@linuxfoundation.org> Organization: Intel GmbH, Dornacher Strasse 1, D-85622 Feldkirchen/Munich X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.9-1+b1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/8] -cross recipes: ignore TARGET_ARCH sstate hash X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 18:28:44 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Tue, 2017-04-11 at 19:25 +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: > I'd tweak the subject line to recipes/*-cross: > > On Tue, 2017-04-11 at 16:56 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote: > > "yocto-compat-layer.py --machines" showed that shared packages like > > gcc-cross-powerpc64 have a sstate signature that depends on > > TUNEFLAGS. As a result, there are unnecessary rebuilds and potential > > conflicts in a multiconfig. > > > > That's due to the way how TARGET_ARCH is set. Richard Purdie > > suggested > > setting TARGET_ARCH[vardepvalue] as fix, which works. It would be > > shorter to do that in cross.inc instead of repeating the relevant > > line > > in different recipes, but Richard was concerned about potential > > side-effects in other usages of cross.inc. > > s/cross.inc/cross.bbclass/g Okay, will do both as part of V4. -- Best Regards, Patrick Ohly The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter.