[oe] [PATCH] sane-toolchain-eglibc.inc: Set TARGET_OS?= linux-gnuspe for e500

[Khem Raj]

On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 3:51 AM, Phil Blundell<philb at gnu.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-09-03 at 08:11 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 2:32 AM, Phil Blundell<philb at gnu.org> wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2009-09-02 at 21:36 -0700, Tom Rini wrote:
>> >> Can we get away with that?  'linux-gnu' over 'linux' should be fine I
>> >> think but I'm worried about 'linux-uclibceabi', is that really a normal
>> >> standard and known host?  Also, there's some overrides that depend on
>> >> 'uclibcgnueabi' iirc, which need to be updated for libc-uclibc override
>> >> instead.
>> >
>> > I think Khem's patch does update most/all of the overrides in question,
>> > but if this requires an OELAYOUT_ABI change then it seems like a lot of
>> > disruption to fix what is (if I understand correctly) only a cosmetic
>> > problem in the first place.
>>
>> The documentation around OELAYOUT_ABI says that it should be bumped
>> whenever there is a change in tmp layout structure and this change will do
>> rename few directories and binaries in the tmp folder thats why the
>> bump
>>
>> and incremental builds wont work anyway because cross compiler names
>> will be different.
>> thats why I was bumping it up.
>
> Yes, I know what OELAYOUT_ABI is for.  The point I was making is that,
> if changing the TARGET_OS strings is disruptive enough to require an
> OELAYOUT_ABI bump (and hence, effectively, force everybody to delete
> their working trees and rebuild from scratch), that seems like a lot of
> hassle for very little actual gain.
>
> As I understand it, there is no compelling reason why the TARGET_OS
> strings need to be changed: the difference between linux and linux-gnu
> (and between linux-uclibcgnueabi and linux-uclibceabi) is more of a
> cosmetic one than a functional advantage.  If that's the case then the
> change doesn't really seem to be important enough to justify the
> upheaval; I would suggest leaving those strings alone for now.
>
> If and when we are obliged to bump OELAYOUT_ABI for some other (more
> important) reason, that would be a good time to fold in this sort of
> thing.
>
> Alternatively, a reasonable compromise might be to arrange for
> OELAYOUT_ABI to be bumped only for folks who are using an affected
> DISTRO (which I guess means micro and minimal in this situation).
>

Other distros also need this change. IMO it will be better
that we enforce a rebuild otherwise users might have issues that
are hard to debug.

> p.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel at lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
>