On Thursday 21 February 2019 at 13:01:27 +0000, Richard Purdie wrote: > 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.
I had suspected that was the reason for the delay. I shall knock my modifications to glibc-package.inc into shape and send a tested patch. I've already improved it a little compared to the version I sent previously. Thanks for the response. Mike. -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core