From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from tygrysek.juszkiewicz.com.pl (tygrysek.juszkiewicz.com.pl [178.33.81.99]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3516A6A9D3 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2013 08:54:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: by tygrysek.juszkiewicz.com.pl (Postfix, from userid 65534) id 2E34DD231C; Tue, 11 Jun 2013 10:54:43 +0200 (CEST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on tygrysek.juszkiewicz.com.pl X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 Received: from [192.168.1.112] (87-206-60-225.dynamic.chello.pl [87.206.60.225]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: marcin@juszkiewicz.com.pl) by tygrysek.juszkiewicz.com.pl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3796AD22F9 for ; Tue, 11 Jun 2013 10:54:12 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <51B6E5AF.4080808@juszkiewicz.com.pl> Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 10:54:07 +0200 From: Marcin Juszkiewicz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130529 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org References: <1370165592-15697-1-git-send-email-net147@gmail.com> <51AB1684.1080500@juszkiewicz.com.pl> <51B6D7DA.1060609@juszkiewicz.com.pl> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6 OpenPGP: id=117A251E Subject: Re: [meta-oe][PATCH] llvm3.2: new recipe X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 08:54:40 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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.