Hi Bernhard Reutner-Fischer,
On 5 March 2015 at 21:48, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
<rep.dot....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5 March 2015 at 15:06, Naresh Bhat <naresh.b...@linaro.org> wrote:
>
>>>>if d.getVar('TARGET_ARCH', True) == "aarch64":
>>>> return
>>>>
>>>>Does it make sense ?
>>>
>>> At least the parser should grok it.
>>> The change itself does not make sense to me either way.
>> I did this change because it does not make any sense to build the ISO
>> image for aarch64 architecture. The HDD image should be sufficient.
>> Correct me if I am wrong. I find a dependency of syslinux package to
>> build ISO image (isolinux.bin). I have skipped the syslinux package
>> dependency @luvOS distribution. The syslinux package contains lot of
>> x86 assembly code. That's the reason I just want to skip the ISO image
>> build for aarch64 architecture.
>
> COMPATIBLE_HOST of syslinux should have prevented you from building
> syslinux for aarch64 in the first place, no?
>
> My assumption is that building this part of bootimg class for aarch64
> is wrong, you should have gotten an error when you attempt to build
> the HDD-image for non-i386 compatible targets.
> So, maybe, NOHDD should be (automagically) set based on
> COMPATIBLE_HOST or something like this?
> But then i don't really see why your aarch64 is the first to encounter
> this so maybe your config is just wrong instead?
>
> Not my homework though ;)
Yes, I do agree. I did my homework. I have missed a patch in this
series. I will push the modified patches next series by
today/tomorrow. Can we please continue the discussion on my next
series. Probably you can give me few more points on my next patch
series.
>
> thanks,
--
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
