[oe] introducing a new architecture/machine; policy ? (and a question)

[Khem Raj]

On (23/06/10 21:55), Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
> 2010/6/23 Khem Raj <raj.khem at gmail.com>:
> > On (23/06/10 13:16), Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
> >> 2010/6/23 Koen Kooi <k.kooi at student.utwente.nl>:
> >> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >> > Hash: SHA1
> >> >
> >> > On 23-06-10 12:07, Philip Balister wrote:
> >> >> On 06/23/2010 12:03 PM, Graeme Gregory wrote:
> >> >>> On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 11:54:21 +0200
> >> >>> Frans Meulenbroeks<fransmeulenbroeks at gmail.com>  wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> 2010/6/23 Graeme Gregory<dp at xora.org.uk>:
> >> >>>>>>>> Also I don't feel empowered to make changes in distribution
> >> >>>>>>>> specific files.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Why not, chances are Angstrom maintainers would be quite happy for
> >> >>>>> you to patch angstrom*.conf if you ask us.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Graeme
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> distribution != angstrom
> >> >>>> There are more distributions out there.
> >> >>
> >> >> Right now, toolchain selection is done in distro files not machine
> >> >> files. I agree this is not the clearest approach, however adding the
> >> >> toolchain selection to the machine files may have unexpected side effects.
> >> >
> >> > Think of multimachine builds. What happens when someone else adds
> >> > *another* nios2 based machine with different toolchain versions, how do
> >> > I know which toolchain avahi_1.0_nios2.ipk was compiled with
> >>
> >> If toolchain is interesting to know in ipk's it should be part of the name.
> >> And note that I am really in favour of an architecture specific
> >> solution, not a machine one.
> >> That is why I used an include file to contain the pinnings.
> >>
> >> And actually the situation with nios2 is much much worse.
> >> As it is a soft-core people can come up with all kind of variants.
> >> (e.g. with/without fp).
> >
> > not new. Other arches have similar variants already in OE
> 
> I know, but at least in those architectures if you have a board the
> situation is static.
> In fpga's capable of having a nios2 machine, it is still possible to
> load different configurations.

how many ? if they are managable you can still use the existing relation of
machine to them but if you really want to make it configurable then you
might think of writing a class which would define these configurations
somehow may be you can denote various configs through some bitbake var
then.