[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 11:00 AM, Martin Jansa <martin.jansa at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 04:33:33PM +0000, McClintock Matthew-B29882 wrote:
>> 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?
>
> In
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/2012-March/018543.html
> I've said:
>
> "And we should change TARGET_ARCH in SDK_NAME to PACKAGE_ARCH or TUNE_PKGARCH"
>
> So why TUNE_ARCH/TUNE_PKGARCH over PACKAGE_ARCH?
>
> I don't see the advantage, but if there is some I'll update it in v2.

Well for powerpc (PACKAGE_ARCH) we have ppce500mc, ppce500v2, and
ppce5500 (TUNEPKG_ARCH) and for powerpc64 we have ppc64e5500. This is
what I would want my toolchain to convey - not sure what the best
generic solution is.

-M