Re: [meta-oe][PATCH] llvm3.2: new recipe

[Marcin Juszkiewicz <marcin@juszkiewicz.com.pl>]

W dniu 11.06.2013 10:03, Khem Raj pisze:
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 12:55 AM, Marcin Juszkiewicz
>> W dniu 11.06.2013 09:48, Khem Raj pisze:

>>> why do you think they are worthless ? when they give good information
>>> instead of failing to build and then generating support question
>>> which need more work to come to same conclusion
>>
>> $ MACHINE=genericarmv8 bitbake nano
>> "llvm is not supported"
>> "openjdk is not supported"
>> "another-thing-you-do-not-care-for-this-build is not supported"
> 
> it could be said if you do not care for such recipes then BBMASK them
> and message
> well may be it could be make bb.note instead of bb.warn to make it
> more of FYI kind of thing

"NOTE: llvm does not support aarch64 yet" looks better. But still is
worthless.

>> This is how your builds look for not supported architectures.
>>
>> OE has COMPATIBLE_HOST variable which can be used by recipe maintainers
>> to mark which architectures are supported.

> in this case arch does not map to what OE's target arch is so you have
> to do it twice if you want to use COMPATIBLE_HOST

It has 7 OE architectures: i.86, x86_64, arm, mips(el), powerpc(64)
which are then mapped into 5 llvm ones. Can be gathered into one
COMPATIBLE_HOST (copied from kexec-tools):

COMPATIBLE_HOST = '(x86_64.*|i.86.*|arm.*|powerpc.*|mips.*)-(linux)'

"mips.*" probably needs to be changed to "mips(el)?" to not cover mips64.

> and suppose a non supported arch becomes supported you have to change
> both places.

Once it gets supported you will need to add/edit recipe anyway.