[oe] Why not use config.guess in conf/bitbake.conf ?

[Esben Haabendal]

On Tue, 6 Nov 2007 17:06:48 +0100, Holger Freyther <zecke at selfish.org> wrote:
> 
> Am 06.11.2007 um 12:19 schrieb Esben Haabendal:
>>
>> What is the reason that conf/bitbake.conf is relying directly on
>> the 'uname' output for generating the BUILD_SYS string?
>>
>> I am trying to get OE building on Cygwin, and on my machine
>> bitbake.conf generates a BUILD_SYS that is not supported by
>> config.sub, which breaks a autotools packages.
>>
>> $ uname -a
>> CYGWIN_NT-5.1 PC_K_EHA 1.5.24(0.156/4/2) 2007-01-31 10:57 i686 Cygwin
>>
>> As bitbake.conf takes the first field as BUILD_OS, and the 5th
>> field as BUILD_ARCH and then set BUILD_SYS to ${BUILD_ARCH}-$
>> {BUILD_OS} I end up with
>> i686-cygwin_nt-5.1
>> which breaks config.sub due to the '-' in the os string.
>>
>> Using a current config.guess on this system, I get
>> i686-pc-cygwin
>> which is fine.
>> On my laptop (running gutsy) it would give me a BUILD_SYS
>> i686-pc-linux-gnu
> 
> A sane OS does return something sane on uname. But e.g. check  build/
> Power\ Macintosh-darwin.conf on what can be done for none sane
> operating systems... So create your file for cygwin and send a patch ;)

Ah, nice approach. Didn't notice that.

But.... this file will be included after
 * build-${BUILD_OS} is added to OVERRIDES
 * STAGING_DIR_NATIVE is set to ${STAGING_DIR}/${BUILD_SYS}

So these will still be set to non-sane values, although the ${BUILD_OS} and ${BUILD_SYS} values will be sane.

Wouldn't it make more sense to include conf/build/${BUILD_SYS}.conf right after constructing ${BUILD_SYS} from uname?  At least for now, it is not used for anything else than altering these values.

/Esben
-- 
Esben Haabendal
Embedded Software Consultant
Doré Development ApS