On 07/21/2011 09:48 AM, Khem Raj wrote: > On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 5:17 AM, Kumar Gala <ga...@kernel.crashing.org> wrote: >> Why do we have a split between powerpc-common & powerpc-linux? >> >> I assume powerpc-linux is used and picked up for powerpc-linux-uclibc in >> addition to normal powerpc-linux. >> >> I'm looking at adding powerpc64 support and powerpc-common is all kinda of >> broken for it. I'd like to just merge powerpc-common & powerpc-linux (as >> powerpc-linux 32-bit) for now and start a new powerpc-common that refactors >> 32/64 commonalities. >> >> Unless someone says otherwise about the meaning of these files. > > powerpc-common is shared between uclibc and eglibc at present and may > be shared with other OSes that may build with OE in future. > traditionally powerpc-common implicitly implied 32bit so I am not > surprised if its broken for ppc64. You could add powerpc64-common > and leave 32bit alone. See how its done for mips64 in oe.dev > > http://git.openembedded.org/cgit.cgi/openembedded/tree/site
I'd argue that what we do for mips today is also wrong and I'm going to try and fix it as soon as I can. In these cases we should have: common, common-linux, common-$libc, mips-common, mips-linux, mips64-linux and if needed mips64-linux-libc. But I suspect some of the above won't exist, and that's OK. -- Tom Rini Mentor Graphics Corporation _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
