[oe] [PATCH 0/4][RFC] Remove CROSS_DIR, install cross-packages into native sysroot

[Richard Purdie]

On Fri, 2010-07-23 at 10:11 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On 23-07-10 10:02, Phil Blundell wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-07-23 at 09:25 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote:
> >> There is a BIG problem with these patches, they break multimachine builds.
> >>
> >> The previous situation had:
> >>
> >> cross/armv7a-angstrom-foo/usr/bin/
> >> cross/armv5te-angstrom-foo/usr/bin/
> >> etc
> >>
> >> The new situation has:
> >>
> >> x86_64-linux/usr/bin
> >>
> >> So all the toolchains get dropped into the *same* directory, which
> >> breaks horribly.
> > 
> > Which are the actual binaries that collide?  I would have thought that
> > everything which gets installed into the cross bindir ought to be
> > prefixed with TARGET_SYS (i.e. usr/bin/armv7a-angstrom-linux-gcc, etc).
> 
> It's all 'arm-angstrom-foo', I was just about to make the suggestion to
> change it to 'armv7a-angstrom-foo' :)

I've just been talking to Koen about this. When building for armv7a,
TARGET_ARCH which goes into TARGET_PREFIX and TARGET_SYS is "arm".

I suspect if we change TARGET_ARCH to be armv7a, nasty things will
happen but I could be wrong.

If that doesn't help which I suspect it won't, my gut instinct is to add
a architecture specific directory under bin for the cross bits. This
could be as simple as changing bindir in cross.bbclass.

> I don't know if that solves the binutils-cross problem[1], though.
>
> Koen
> 
> [1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.handhelds.openembedded/34685

Is that libiberty.a file actually useful or could we just stop
binutils-cross installing it?

Cheers,

Richard