On Wed, 2019-02-20 at 16:47 +0000, Mike Crowe wrote: > On Wednesday 23 January 2019 at 16:27:59 +0000, Mike Crowe wrote: > > > > Does the lack of response mean that both approaches are horrendous? > > If so, do you have any better ideas? > > There doesn't seem to be much interest in this one. > > The only other idea I've had is to create the symlink at rootfs-creation > time. However, that seems to be detaching it too much from glibc, which > would cause confusion. > > I can apply one of my fixes locally (we currently have some far uglier > hacks than these that I'd like to remove), but I'd really rather not have > to diverge from upstream this much.
Sorry for the lack of feedback. I'm fairly strongly against a separate aarch64 only recipe for this. Realistically we therefore have to fix this in the existing class/code/recipe. The changes you sent previously didn't look that horrific, did you find a working version of that? I'm wondering if we can come up with something which works and hopefully we can spot some way to then clean it up to be a bit nicer... The delay was that I was going to try and come up with something but that hasn't happened yet. If you have a horrific non-separate recipe version that is complete, we can see if we can do anything to improve it. Cheers, Richard -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core