On Tue, 2017-04-11 at 10:01 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 9:52 AM, Patrick Ohly <patrick.o...@intel.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2017-04-11 at 09:39 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
> >> I think TUNE_PKGARCH is the granularity it needs for setting GOARM
> >> anyway.
> >
> > So you are saying the patch that I had proposed initially in this mail
> > thread (go-cross-${TARGET_ARCH} -> go-cross-${TUNE_PKGARCH}) is the
> > right solution?
>
> no, dependency on libgcc should be removed from go cross if possible.
> Its similar to gcc in that regard.
Good that I asked, because I understood "TUNE_PKGARCH is the granularity
it needs" as the exact opposite ;-}
The "if possible" part is where it gets tricky. There's this comment
next to the DEPENDS saying "libgcc is required for the target specific
libraries to build properly" and I simply have no idea how obviously
it'll break when removing the dependency in go-cross.
Anyway, I'll proceed down that route by rewriting the go.inc. Note that
Richard correctly pointed out that the inclusion of go-1.8.bb in
go-cross-1.8.bb isn't particularly clean, making such a change a bit
more complicated. But I don't want to move content around too much just
for this, so I'll leave the cleanup to the go maintainers.
--
Best Regards, Patrick Ohly
The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although
I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way
represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak
on behalf of Intel on this matter.
--
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
