On (07/09/12 18:15), Phil Blundell wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-09-07 at 18:09 +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
> > The key places people get bitten are eglibc and gcc so those should be
> > straight forward to test, the question is how widely to deploy this
> > initially. I think the mechanism is good, its now just a question of the
> > implementation detail.
>
> Eglibc and gcc, at least, support building with ${B} != ${S} so it might
> be easier/quicker to just blow away the whole ${B} tree rather than
> trying to distclean it.
yeah and I think separating B from S in general has merits in long run
>
> I imagine that most modern-ish autotools-based packages will also build
> fine in that configuration, though there are bound to be some that
> don't. It's hard to say whether there are likely to be more or fewer of
> those than there are ones where "make distclean" fails.
>
either way there seems to be same amount of uncertainity.
> p.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
--
-Khem
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
