[oe] sdk.bbclass and gcc-cross-sdk

[Richard Purdie]

On Wed, 2008-03-05 at 20:06 +0100, Leon Woestenberg wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 7:11 PM, Richard Purdie <rpurdie at rpsys.net> wrote:
> >  What do I propose as a solution? I think the simplest thing is to would
> >  be to do some/all of:
> >
> >  a) revert my sdk.bbclass changes
> >  b) continue with our build == host assumption for gcc-cross-sdk for now
> >  c) rename sdk.bbclass cross-sdk.bbclass
> >  d) add a "real" sdk.bbclass
> >
> Before a), I would like to see a description of what we expect the
> different classes to do, simply because I have lost track. I
> understood we never  supported building Canadian cross-compilers, BTW.

The 'normal' situation for OE is:

  build = "build system"
  host = target = "set by machine config"

cross.bbclass: 

  build = host = "build system"
  target = "set by machine config"

native.bbclass:

  build = host = target = "build system"

sdk.bbclass (previously)

  build = host = "build system"
  target = "set by machine config"

sdk.bbclass (previously)

  build = "build system"
  host = "build system with modified vendor"
  target = "set by machine config"

> There are other projects that focus on the correctness of building
> cross toolchains*, canadian or non-canadian, and if we have clear
> requirements for each of our classes, I would like to see if I can
> understand what we do (correctly or not).

So sdk.bbclass did become a kind of Canadian cross but only with a
different vendor part of the triplet. I'd not realised this had changed
what gcc-cross-sdk was doing so drastically since it still worked!

"gcc" is a normal package, "gcc-initial" and "gcc-cross" are cross
packages, gcc-cross-sdk is an sdk package.

We could support building canadian cross if we wanted, Id propose a new
class for it though (sdk-canadian?). Does that cover what you wanted?

Cheers,

Richard