Re: introducing a new architecture/machine; policy ? (and a question)

[Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>]

On (23/06/10 11:54), Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
> 2010/6/23 Graeme Gregory <dp@xora.org.uk>:
> >> >> Also I don't feel empowered to make changes in distribution
> >> >> specific files.
> >
> > Why not, chances are Angstrom maintainers would be quite happy for you
> > to patch angstrom*.conf if you ask us.
> >
> > Graeme
> 
> distribution != angstrom
> There are more distributions out there.
> 
> The root cause of the problem is that a distro can specify a version
> of a tool (let's take gcc as an example) that is not supported by a
> specific hardware architecture.
> I'd say what we really need is a way to allow a processor architecture
> to specify which versions of binutls and gcc and friends are supported
> for that hw architecture.
> Mind you I talk about processor architectures, not boards.
> (actually I guess this extends to every package that contains assembly
> files or inline assembly)
> 
> The problem became more visible with nios2 as this is an architecture
> that is not (yet) supported by gcc. Patches for now exist only for
> 4.1.2.
> 

some architectures may not support particular version of say gcc but
still if that architecture is supported by a given distro then it should
define the required version of say gcc in distro.conf with override

for instance check conf/distro/include/sane-toolchain.inc which is serving
a few distributions overrides default compiler versions for AVR32
you need to do something same for nios2

Thanks
-Khem

> Frans.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel