On Tue, 2011-05-17 at 01:13 +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
> The more I looked at that patch, the more holes I could see in what we
> were doing (and what Angstrom currently does). I started playing around
> with the patch below which tried to improve on that idea.
>
> I then concluded that we might be able to do something like:
>
> MACHINEOVERRIDES := "${MACHINE}"
> MACHINE_append = "-uclibc"
>
> since what we're really trying to do in the uclibc case is replace
> anything MACHINE specific with something containing uclibc?
I think that particular change would be a bad idea for several reasons.
Firstly, and perhaps most importantly, MACHINE is a primary
configuration variable and having it magically change under the hood
seems like it would violate the principle of least surprise. Secondly,
at a practical level, this would make it hard to use MACHINE for
anything other than overrides. And thirdly, at a conceptual level, the
choice of libc is really nothing to do with the MACHINE.
> diff --git a/meta/classes/sstate.bbclass b/meta/classes/sstate.bbclass
> index 553c6a2..354668f 100644
> --- a/meta/classes/sstate.bbclass
> +++ b/meta/classes/sstate.bbclass
This patch looks good to me (and I would definitely prefer this to the
solution above). The lines that you have deleted from tclibc-uclibc.inc
were causing my uclibc builds to fail so I would certainly be glad to
have them removed.
p.
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
