[OE-core] [PATCH 0/6] RFC Distro config changes

[Koen Kooi]

Op 11 mei 2011, om 11:45 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven:

> On Tue, 2011-05-10 at 17:58 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote:
>> Op 10 mei 2011, om 16:00 heeft Richard Purdie het volgende geschreven:
>> 
>>> From: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie at linuxfoundation.org>
>>> 
>>> As discussed, we want to make OE-Core usable with no distro set. This patch series
>>> makes some big steps towards that goal. I'd be interested in feedback on whether it
>>> does the right things and would be usable by others.
>>> 
>>> The key is the inclusion of a distro/defaultsetup.conf file by bitbake.conf and 
>>> in turn this pulls in a variety of other common include files which can likely be
>>> shared. Any point of this cycle can be overridden by another layer so its totally
>>> customisable. I'd encourage users to use the pieces they can where possible so we
>>> all share best practises but obviously people have choice.
>>> 
>>> I did dump a load of "default" variables into default-distrovars.inc, I'm not
>>> calling that file finished, I just had to draw the line somewhere and start a 
>>> discussion about this :)
>> 
>> For angstrom we had to change a few things, have a look at
>> http://git.angstrom-distribution.org/cgi-bin/cgit.cgi/meta-angstrom/tree/conf/distro/include/angstrom-core-tweaks.inc , specifically lines 12-18 and 53-54
> 
> I don't understand what TOOLCHAIN_PATH and TOOLCHAIN_SYSPATH do, I can't
> find any reference to them in OECore.

They are for torublesome recipes combined with external toolchains. Denys, could you enlighten us a bit more on those?

> For the uclibc bits, I'm proposing
> to add:
> 
> +DEPLOY_DIR_append = "-uclibc"
> +STAGING_DIR_TARGET_append = "-uclibc"
> +STAGING_DIR_HOST_append = "-uclibc"
> +SSTATE_MANIFESTS_append = "-uclibc"
> 
> to tclibc-uclibc.inc.

Can we use _append_libc-uclibc = "uclibc" or even plain ${TCLIBC} in a generic include file? That would be a lot more readable and fix glibc vs eglibc.

> For the SDK/TOOLCHAIN bits, I need to have a close look at the SDK and
> figure out what the implications are there as I want to ensure that they
> can all be parallel installed as well as being in separate tarballs but
> its something we need to look at.

I needed 'armv5te' and 'armv7a' in the tarball name, so that's how this is derived. It matched the OE names, but Khem found some bugs and changed it a little.