On Thu, 2012-09-27 at 13:58 -0500, Mark Hatle wrote: > I've been an advocate for a while that the processor optimization (CCARGS) > does > make it into the PKGARCH. ARMPKGSFX_CPU seems like a reasonable approach to > do > this. It allows each tune to set something to tell people what that binary > is > really built for, and for the 'base' tunes (i.e. armv5) it can be left off.
I think we've discussed this before but, just to reiterate, this sort of thing is a matter of DISTRO policy. It is perfectly legitimate to want to build binaries with, say, -march=armv5te -mtune=arm926ej-s and have them end up with PACKAGE_ARCH="armv5te" or even just "arm". It seems to me that we are in danger of adding a lot of complicated and hard-to-understand machinery to oe-core in an attempt to solve a problem that ought to be getting solved by the DISTRO, and that by doing so we might be making life harder rather than easier for DISTROs which happen to want a slightly different labelling model to the default. p. _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
