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

[Khem Raj]

On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 2:32 PM, Koen Kooi <koen at dominion.thruhere.net> wrote:
>
> 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?
>

because there are some machines conf files which use BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH e.g.
tune-xscale.inc

BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH = "${@['armv5teb',
'armv5te'][bb.data.getVar('SITEINFO_ENDIANESS', d, 1) == 'le']}"

PACKAGE_EXTRA_ARCHS = "${@['armeb armv4b armv4tb armv5teb', 'arm armv4
armv4t armv5te'][bb.data.getVar('SITEINFO_ENDIANESS', d, 1) == 'le']}"

and this does not get evaluated properly then

>> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core at lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
>