[oe] commit 4d6a63850b4dc7ca2f060aedda26ddf4efa0e5cc

Khem Raj raj.khem at gmail.com
Thu Jul 8 00:18:26 UTC 2010


On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 12:17 AM, Koen Kooi <k.kooi at student.utwente.nl> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 07-07-10 00:49, Tom Rini wrote:
>> Koen Kooi wrote:
>>
>>> +PREFERRED_VERSION_gcc-cross = "4.1.2"
>>> +PREFERRED_VERSION_gcc-cross-initial = "4.1.2"
>>> +PREFERRED_VERSION_gcc-cross-intermediate = "4.1.2"
>>> +PREFERRED_VERSION_binutils = "2.17.50.0.12"
>>> +PREFERRED_VERSION_binutils-cross = "2.17.50.0.12"
>> [snip]
>>> do NOT belong in a machine.conf (or machine include). Those belong in
>>> the distro (or local.conf), not in the machine.
>>
>> Just putting this out there (and it's indeed _not_ how things are
>> today).  Why would we not want to move towards having this kind of stuff
>> be in the tune-ARCH.inc file, when a specific version is really needed
>> (more avr32 or new'ish core on an existing overall arch) ?
>
> Putting it in a tune-arch is not a problem, just put it in
> conf/distro/include.
> Experience has shown that putting it the machine includes is a bad idea,
> It rots and after a while a new machine gets added that doesn't use said
> machine include.
> And not to mention the need to change DISTRO_PR for editing a
> machine.conf, that's just backwards.
>
>> Yes, it
>> should be up to the distro to say "we want 4.4.x + 2.20.x" or whatever,
>> but then we also get the downside of "special case, XXXX only works well
>> with 4.3.4 + 2.19.x" or what have you, and those special cases get
>> introduced in one place and copy/pasted elsewhere.
>
> So you have an include file in conf/distro that people can optionally
> use or copy/paste. Not all distros can/want to support all machines in
> OE. Angstrom tries to, but that's because it's the reference implemention :)
>
> It boils down to this:
>
> The distro needs to make a decision to do strange stuff to support a
> platform. Silently forcing it is bad.
>
> In this specific case no distro except angstrom has expressed interest
> in supporting nios2, so we could even but this in an angstrom.inc.
> Seriously, can the distro maintainers that are willing to support nios2
> please raise their hands?

yes it belongs to distro. Logically machines pin machine specific things
toolchain is more akin to distro than a machine. Its how OE is designed.
I agree with Koen here. If you propose fixes for say sane-toochain.inc
many other distro will support nios2.

>
> regards,
>
> Koen
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin)
>
> iD8DBQFMNConMkyGM64RGpERAon3AJ9keLb8YBEVmCsvWzhEqb3qtLCWKgCfcX+4
> kuDgy1Jqhl4qdAIVEWkiTfc=
> =0Lny
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel at lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
>




More information about the Openembedded-devel mailing list