From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-iy0-f175.google.com ([209.85.210.175]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1RTddO-0006gP-Q6 for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Thu, 24 Nov 2011 19:02:56 +0100 Received: by iahk25 with SMTP id k25so3308496iah.6 for ; Thu, 24 Nov 2011 09:56:21 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=SeaITbMDm35Ls+jli8Z0876VJCISE1L9xh+NGs1rc7g=; b=reHJzRG1JSxnkXrs97O1KdvYMCcWPptc4q8Tc6bfteIX719Ip4zth+CmNpU8P9fD06 A/Cu6rtWS6iZl/L6uRfhc+Nz1pjMwZhFplR1kkS8CrMsui158O58UfsdiOgjkjUwqFQJ ZkgTybM+Ri/8aegVSgE5muRonbHjT+suA6SzQ= Received: by 10.42.153.6 with SMTP id k6mr8532039icw.30.1322157381058; Thu, 24 Nov 2011 09:56:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from sakrah.homelinux.org (99-57-141-118.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net. [99.57.141.118]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id jm11sm89887870ibb.1.2011.11.24.09.56.18 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 24 Nov 2011 09:56:19 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 10:03:05 -0800 From: Khem Raj To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer Message-ID: <20111124180305.GD28767@sakrah.homelinux.org> References: <1322041226-10075-1-git-send-email-msm@freescale.com> <1322132099.26081.43.camel@phil-desktop> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1322132099.26081.43.camel@phil-desktop> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Cc: McClintock Matthew-B29882 Subject: Re: [RFC] gcc-cross.inc: Add depedency on BUILD_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: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 18:02:56 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On (24/11/11 10:54), Phil Blundell wrote: > On Thu, 2011-11-24 at 07:29 +0000, McClintock Matthew-B29882 wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 1:21 AM, Khem Raj wrote: > > > hmmm I guess cross recipes are special they should not have been built > > > under target recipes. Adding build arch to package name would be ok > > > too but may be if they were built under directory of their own which > > > was something like -- then it would also solve > > > the problem i think > > > > I agree - this is the discussion I'm trying to start. ;) > > It's certainly true that the way the cross recipes are done at the > moment does suck. Really, they should be built as primarily native and > the target arch ought to just be encoded into ${PN} somehow, rather than > the current arrangement of pretending that they are target recipes. > (All the runtime bits are, or should be, packaged separately by either > libgcc or gcc-runtime so they will already get the right PACKAGE_ARCH.) yes building them under native build dir and suffixing with build.host.arch would be way to go > > There are some old (and probably rather bit-rotten) patches to do that > in the pb/toolchain-desuck branch of oe-classic. I'm not sure whether > any of that stuff will apply to modern oe-core but the general principle > ought still to be valid. > > p. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-core mailing list > Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core -- -Khem