From: Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep.dot.nop@gmail.com>
To: Phil Blundell <philb@gnu.org>
Cc: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
Subject: ping**2 [was: Re: [PATCH 2/2] busybox: configure according to {MACHINE, DISTRO}_FEATURES]
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 20:23:59 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100628182359.GD1184@mx.loc> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100622203953.GB1184@mx.loc>
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 10:39:53PM +0200, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
>On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 01:59:12PM +0100, Phil Blundell wrote:
>>On Thu, 2010-06-10 at 23:20 +0200, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
>>> If the machine does not provide a choice to use or not use the MMU then
>>> it makes no sense to take that into account for the package arch (think
>>> bfin or i586 or certain coldfires/m68k), yes. If, OTOH, a machine
>>> supports it (let's say ppc) then there must at least be a nice way to
>>> distinguish ppc<endian><mmu><floatingpoint> i would have hoped.
>>
>>Endianness and FPU are clearly both part of the general ABI: virtually
>>every package which contains compiled code is going to have a dependency
>>on those two settings. So, for DISTROs which support multiple values
>>for either of those options, I would expect them to simply be encoded
>>into the default PACKAGE_ARCH (either directly or via TARGET_ARCH); this
>>is indeed what's already done with bi-endian ARM for example. For
>>DISTROs which only support one or the other, there's no need to draw the
>>distinction.
>
>ok, i see.
>>
>>MMU is perhaps a little more complicated since, at least in theory, one
>>could imagine a DISTRO which supported both MMU-equipped and non-MMU
>>hardware and where the majority of binaries were capable of running on
>>both targets. So in that case there might be a legitimate argument for
>>making it be a per-package setting in order to get parallel builds of
>>those packages that do actually care. But I think the time to worry
>>about that would be when the situation does actually arise in practice.
>
>fair enough
>
>I hereby mass-ping the patches in this thread:
>[PATCH 1/3] uClibc: redo configuration
>{2/3 was already applied by khem, thanks!}
>[PATCH 3/3] busybox: picking IPv6 per default is not up to the package
>[PATCH 1/2] uclibc: handle DISTRO_FEATURE="largefile"
>[PATCH 2/2] busybox: configure according to {MACHINE,DISTRO}_FEATURES
ping**2
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-06-28 18:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-02-21 15:31 [PATCH] uClibc: rename main include Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
2010-02-22 5:54 ` Khem Raj
2010-03-12 17:46 ` [RFC, PATCH 0/3] uClibc recipe touchup Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
2010-03-12 17:46 ` [PATCH 1/3] uClibc: rename include file of old releases Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
2010-03-12 17:46 ` [PATCH 2/3] sane-toolchain: add PREFERRED_UCLIBC_VERSION Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
2010-04-05 19:49 ` Roman I Khimov
2010-04-08 9:30 ` Stefan Schmidt
2010-06-09 17:11 ` Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
2010-03-12 17:46 ` [PATCH 3/3] uClibc: redo configuration Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
2010-04-05 20:22 ` Roman I Khimov
2010-06-09 17:10 ` [PATCH 0/3] uClibc configury touchup; RFC WRT feature/dep picking heuristics Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
2010-06-09 21:26 ` RFC " Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
2010-06-09 17:10 ` [PATCH 1/3] uClibc: redo configuration Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
2010-06-09 17:10 ` [PATCH 2/3] uclibc_git: keep PV at "git" Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
2010-06-09 17:10 ` [PATCH 3/3] busybox: picking IPv6 per default is not up to the package Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
2010-06-09 18:44 ` Phil Blundell
2010-06-09 18:52 ` Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
2010-06-09 19:18 ` Phil Blundell
2010-06-09 19:32 ` Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
2010-06-09 20:22 ` Phil Blundell
2010-06-10 19:46 ` [PATCH 1/2] uclibc: handle DISTRO_FEATURE="largefile" Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
2010-06-10 19:46 ` [PATCH 2/2] busybox: configure according to {MACHINE, DISTRO}_FEATURES Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
2010-06-10 19:55 ` Chris Larson
2010-06-10 20:22 ` Phil Blundell
2010-06-10 20:27 ` Chris Larson
2010-06-10 20:50 ` Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
2010-06-10 21:06 ` Phil Blundell
2010-06-10 21:20 ` Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
2010-06-11 12:59 ` Phil Blundell
2010-06-22 20:39 ` Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
2010-06-28 18:23 ` Bernhard Reutner-Fischer [this message]
2010-06-10 22:56 ` Khem Raj
2010-06-11 7:16 ` Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
2010-06-10 20:44 ` Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
2010-06-10 21:09 ` Phil Blundell
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20100628182359.GD1184@mx.loc \
--to=rep.dot.nop@gmail.com \
--cc=openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org \
--cc=philb@gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox