On Tue, 2011-11-08 at 14:19 +0800, Dongxiao Xu wrote: > There should just be a single IMAGE_INSTALL variable. If the package > backends need this split into different multilib components they should > be responsible for doing this, not the user. > > This commit removes the MULTILIB_IMAGE_INSTALL variable. > > [YOCTO #1564] > > Signed-off-by: Dongxiao Xu <dongxiao...@intel.com> > --- > meta/classes/image.bbclass | 4 +--- > meta/classes/multilib.bbclass | 5 ++--- > meta/classes/package_ipk.bbclass | 31 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--- > meta/classes/package_rpm.bbclass | 37 +++++++++---------------------------- > meta/classes/rootfs_ipk.bbclass | 3 +-- > meta/classes/rootfs_rpm.bbclass | 3 +-- > 6 files changed, 42 insertions(+), 41 deletions(-)
I'll take this as its a definite improvement over the current situation. I did however wonder what happens if we try something tri-arch e.g. i586, x86_64 and x32? I get the feeling both package backends could really use some cleanup now we have the basics working and better abstraction of the code so we can loop over something like tri-arch (or more) easily... Cheers, Richard _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
