From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.windriver.com (mail.windriver.com [147.11.1.11]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C3CF6084B for ; Tue, 1 Apr 2014 01:40:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ALA-HCA.corp.ad.wrs.com (ala-hca.corp.ad.wrs.com [147.11.189.40]) by mail.windriver.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s311eudx029278 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 31 Mar 2014 18:40:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [128.224.162.231] (128.224.162.231) by ALA-HCA.corp.ad.wrs.com (147.11.189.50) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.169.1; Mon, 31 Mar 2014 18:40:56 -0700 Message-ID: <533A1924.4090903@windriver.com> Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2014 09:40:52 +0800 From: Kang Kai User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130623 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard Purdie References: <1396275649-32352-1-git-send-email-kai.kang@windriver.com> <1396275649-32352-2-git-send-email-kai.kang@windriver.com> <20140331151018.GG2425@jama> <1396283535.14790.78.camel@ted> In-Reply-To: <1396283535.14790.78.camel@ted> X-Originating-IP: [128.224.162.231] Cc: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] nss: avoid to use the hardcode kernel version 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, 01 Apr 2014 01:41:01 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 2014年04月01日 00:32, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Mon, 2014-03-31 at 17:10 +0200, Martin Jansa wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 31, 2014 at 10:20:49PM +0800, Kai Kang wrote: >>> From: Roy Li >>> >>> When native package is built, use the uname to return the kernel version. >>> >>> When target is built, read kernel version from ${STAGING_KERNEL_DIR}/kernel-abiversion >>> to avoid to use the hardcode kernel version. >> Doesn't it make nss MACHINE_ARCH like most virtual/kernel providers are? > Agreed. I rejected this patch a while ago due to this and I'll reject it > again. Got it. Thanks for all of your comments. --Kai > > Cheers, > > Richard > > > -- Regards, Neil | Kai Kang