Em seg., 18 de jul. de 2022 às 19:54, Richard Purdie < richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org> escreveu:
> On Mon, 2022-07-18 at 18:41 -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote: > > Em seg., 18 de jul. de 2022 às 18:18, Richard Purdie > > <richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org> escreveu: > > > > It does, indeed, but it doesn't seem related to this PR. > > > > > > > > Do you know if this has worked? > > > > > > > > I am asking as I did all development and testing using SDKMACHINE > > > > ?= > > > > 'x86_64' and even MACHINE ?= 'qemuarm64' worked just fine. > > > > However, > > > > looking at some of the logs above, it seems it is using an > > > > SDKMACHINE > > > > as i686, so this appears as a different issue for me. > > > > > > > > > > rust-cross-canadian hasn't officially worked properly or been > > > supported. In assessing whether a patch is better or worse, it is > > > useful to know which cases regress and which improve. I had hoped > > > this > > > list of failures would be smaller. I will admit I don't know > > > whether > > > this is better or worse than before so I guess that is the next > > > thing I > > > need to determine. > > > > > > > > > I told you. I tried SDKMACHINE as x86_64 on a x86_64 host and this > > worked. > > > > > What we don't know right now is which combinations work and which > > > don't > > > so we can't even tell people what is expected to work and what > > > isn't/doesn't :( > > > > > > > > > See above. > > > > > I mentioned this report in case someone can work out the pattern, > > > or > > > even better, understand what a fix looks like... > > > > > > > > > I am not familiar enough to Rust boostrap to help here but we spent a > > lot of time to get the SDK working and I think this is a step on the > > right direction, at least. > > Thanks, I do appreciate the patches. I think we've talked cross > purposes as I did report my aarch64 test case issue previously and I > thought this series was to attempt to fix things so the recipe did work > generically. > I had it fixed to SDKMACHINE as x86_64 on a x86_64. I didn't realise it was using a different SDKMACHINE. If I merge this to fix x86_64, I think people will then just ignore the > other cases and things will remain broken there which worries me a lot > and means we can't generically enable rust SDKs for the project and > gain autobuilder testing to spot future regressions. > I understand. > Obviously you want your use case fixed though. I will try and evaluate > things a bit more tomorrow. What I don't want to do is merge a fix > which then makes it harder to get things correctly done in future > though, particularly when I know there will be an instant backport > request to an LTS as soon as I accept it for master. > In fact I need patch 1/2 as this fixes our use case. We worked on 2/2 (this patch) for completeness. > We never should have accepted these rust cross-canadian recipes at all > as they are just broken :(. > Agreed. -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems http://www.ossystems.com.br http://code.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 (53) 9 9981-7854 Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#168265): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/168265 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/92292892/21656 Group Owner: openembedded-core+ow...@lists.openembedded.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
