[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 23:32 heeft Khem Raj het volgende geschreven:

> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Richard Purdie
> <richard.purdie at linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> 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.
>> 
>> 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 ;-).
> 
> Would it make sense to add TARGET_SUBARCH variable ?

and have it mean the same as BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH?