Op 14 jun 2011, om 23:32 heeft Khem Raj het volgende geschreven: > On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 2:24 PM, Richard Purdie > <richard.pur...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 14:13 -0700, Khem Raj wrote: >>> Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <raj.k...@gmail.com> >>> --- >>> meta/classes/allarch.bbclass | 5 +++-- >>> 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/meta/classes/allarch.bbclass b/meta/classes/allarch.bbclass >>> index e3ac392..b9ba28b 100644 >>> --- a/meta/classes/allarch.bbclass >>> +++ b/meta/classes/allarch.bbclass >>> @@ -2,9 +2,10 @@ >>> # This class is used for architecture independent recipes/data files >>> (usally scripts) >>> # >>> >>> +# We need to pour the value of BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH into FEED_ARCH >>> +# before we reset it >>> +FEED_ARCH := ${BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH} >>> BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH = "all" >>> -PACKAGE_ARCH = "all" >>> - >>> # No need for virtual/libc or a cross compiler >>> INHIBIT_DEFAULT_DEPS = "1" >> >> This is a *really* bad idea. An "all" package should have no need to set >> architecture specific values into FEED_ARCH. >> >> Just for those not following IRC, the problem is Angstrom adds FEED_ARCH >> to OVERRIDES. Adding "all" to overrides turns out to do nasty things to >> classes like rm_work with "_all" in the function names. >> >> I'd suggest that various machines should start adding things like armv7a >> to ${MACHINEOVERRIDES} which has a much more clearly defined scope and >> that FEED_ARCH should quietly die ;-). > > Would it make sense to add TARGET_SUBARCH variable ?
and have it mean the same as BASE_PACKAGE_ARCH? _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core