On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 3:07 PM, Saul Wold <s...@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>> Would the correct solution be to break eglibc-mtrace out into a separate
>> recipe.
>>
> I am not sure if this would be more correct or have the PACKAGES contain
> something like ${EGLIBC_PACKAGE_MTRACE}, which could the be over-ridden by
> the yocto-tiny distro.
>
> EGLIBC_PACKAGE_MTRACE ?= "${PN}-mtrace"
>
> and then change ${PN}-mtrace in the PACKAGES list to
> ${EGLIBC_PACKAGE_MTRACE}.
>
> This exposes another "global", so I am not sure which is better.there are other tools e.g. memusage etc. which could be built in a second pass and IMO we should separate the eglibc-bin into a separate recipe since everything depends on system libc its desirable that it should have few dependencies to build it so builds can be more parallel and eglibc wont be a bottleneck. -Khem _______________________________________________ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
