[OE-core] [PATCH V2] allarch.bbclass: Set FEED_ARCH to original value of BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH and then set BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH to 'all'

[Koen Kooi]

Op 14 jun 2011, om 23:24 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven:

> On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 14:13 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <raj.khem at gmail.com>
>> ---
>> meta/classes/allarch.bbclass |    5 +++--
>> 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/meta/classes/allarch.bbclass b/meta/classes/allarch.bbclass
>> index e3ac392..b9ba28b 100644
>> --- a/meta/classes/allarch.bbclass
>> +++ b/meta/classes/allarch.bbclass
>> @@ -2,9 +2,10 @@
>> # This class is used for architecture independent recipes/data files (usally scripts)
>> #
>> 
>> +# We need to pour the value of BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH into FEED_ARCH
>> +# before we reset it
>> +FEED_ARCH := ${BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH}
>> BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH = "all"
>> -PACKAGE_ARCH = "all"
>> -
>> # No need for virtual/libc or a cross compiler
>> INHIBIT_DEFAULT_DEPS = "1"
> 
> This is a *really* bad idea. An "all" package should have no need to set
> architecture specific values into FEED_ARCH.
> 
> Just for those not following IRC, the problem is Angstrom adds FEED_ARCH
> to OVERRIDES. Adding "all" to overrides turns out to do nasty things to
> classes like rm_work with "_all" in the function names.

So why don't we just set PACKAGE_ARCH = all in allarch.bbclass and not touch BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH and FEED_ARCH?

> I'd suggest that various machines should start adding things like armv7a
> to ${MACHINEOVERRIDES} which has a much more clearly defined scope and
> that FEED_ARCH should quietly die ;-).

And that's what I've start calling a 'yocto' type of solution. That just doesn't scale since it relies on fixing all the machines out there instead of levering the knowledge provided by OE already. I'd appreciate a solution is better thought out.