[OE-core] [oe-core][PATCH] bitbake.conf: use PACKAGE_ARCH instead of TARGET_ARCH in SDK_NAME

[McClintock Matthew-B29882]

On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Matthew McClintock <msm at freescale.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 12:48 AM, Martin Jansa <martin.jansa at gmail.com> wrote:
>> * also use weak assignment for SDK_NAME_PREFIX as suggested by khem
>> * PACKAGE_ARCH is not 100% right too, because such SDK image usually has few
>>  machine specific packages included (e.g. base-files, securetty, opkg configs)
>>  but those are not important for SDK users so it's better to have one SDK for
>>  whole e.g. armv7a-vfp-neon then 6 SDK for each machine which would work the
>>  same.
>>  You can see diff between crespo and om-gta04 SDK here:
>>  http://build.shr-project.org/shr-core-staging/031/sdk/oecore-i686-armv7a-vfp-neon-toolchain-efl-crespo-om-gta04.diff
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Martin Jansa <Martin.Jansa at gmail.com>
>> ---
>>  meta/conf/bitbake.conf |    4 ++--
>>  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/meta/conf/bitbake.conf b/meta/conf/bitbake.conf
>> index 87bb71c..91f8397 100644
>> --- a/meta/conf/bitbake.conf
>> +++ b/meta/conf/bitbake.conf
>> @@ -364,8 +364,8 @@ PKGDATA_DIR = "${TMPDIR}/pkgdata/${MULTIMACH_TARGET_SYS}"
>>  # SDK variables,
>>  ##################################################################
>>
>> -SDK_NAME_PREFIX = "oecore"
>> -SDK_NAME = "${SDK_NAME_PREFIX}-${SDK_ARCH}-${TARGET_ARCH}"
>> +SDK_NAME_PREFIX ?= "oecore"
>> +SDK_NAME = "${SDK_NAME_PREFIX}-${SDK_ARCH}-${PACKAGE_ARCH}"
>
> Why PACKAGE_ARCH over TUNE_ARCH?

Or rather TUNE_PKGARCH?

-M