Re: MIPS vs MIPS32 tunings -- summary and questions

[Andreas Oberritter <obi@opendreambox.org>]

On 18.04.2012 14:00, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 13:54 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 01:45:54PM +0200, Andreas Oberritter wrote:
>>> On 18.04.2012 13:40, Richard Purdie wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 2012-04-18 at 13:30 +0200, Andreas Oberritter wrote:
>>>>> now, after having repacked all binary tarballs that had mipsel or
>>>>> mipsel-nf in their name and contents, and after having changed all
>>>>> occurrences of mipsel and mipsel-nf in my local recipes (where
>>>>> appropriate), and after having rebuilt everything from scratch again, it
>>>>> came to my attention that "mipsel" in PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS breaks opkg,
>>>>> because no mipsel packages are being generated. That's what I told
>>>>> before, right?
>>>>
>>>> How is this breaking opkg? We often have architectures listed in there
>>>> for which there are no packages generated (all, noarch and any spring to
>>>> mind)?
>>>
>>> Downloading http://10.0.0.1/mipsel/Packages.gz.
>>> wget: server returned error: HTTP/1.1 404 Not Found
>>> Collected errors:
>>>  * opkg_download: Failed to download http://10.0.0.1/mipsel/Packages.gz, wget returned 1.
>>
>> I had a lot of those (e.g. because armv7a-vfp-neon was including 20
>> arm*feed.conf variants in /etc/opkg most of them empty - without
>> Packages.gz).
>>
>> So I've added "filter" to distro-feed-configs
>> http://git.shr-project.org/git/?p=meta-smartphone.git;a=commit;h=236aa553bb0f82f741c6edb793e96f421f24f4fa
>> to add only feeds I'm generating (and I also don't want armv5* packages
>> installed on armv7a-vfp-neon target unless user explicitly adds armv5*
>> feed).
> 
> This is the better solution. I think we need to get a better default
> feed-config generation mechanism into the core. Distros may still need
> to tweak it but it would be good to share some of the best practises...

Did you look at the patch? Which default setting of
SUPPORTED_EXTRA_ARCHS do you suggest? Do you think it's feasible to add
every single downloadable arch to this variable? If a user of my distro
decides to build it for some arm or x86 cpu, should he need to know
which archs to add at this place?

I don't think that's user-friendly and I don't know what's so bad about
removing something that probably hasn't helped anybody.

Regards,
Andreas