On (24/11/11 10:54), Phil Blundell wrote: > On Thu, 2011-11-24 at 07:29 +0000, McClintock Matthew-B29882 wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 1:21 AM, Khem Raj <raj.k...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > hmmm I guess cross recipes are special they should not have been built > > > under target recipes. Adding build arch to package name would be ok > > > too but may be if they were built under directory of their own which > > > was something like <build>-<host>-<target> then it would also solve > > > the problem i think > > > > I agree - this is the discussion I'm trying to start. ;) > > It's certainly true that the way the cross recipes are done at the > moment does suck. Really, they should be built as primarily native and > the target arch ought to just be encoded into ${PN} somehow, rather than > the current arrangement of pretending that they are target recipes. > (All the runtime bits are, or should be, packaged separately by either > libgcc or gcc-runtime so they will already get the right PACKAGE_ARCH.)
yes building them under native build dir and suffixing with build.host.arch would be way to go > > There are some old (and probably rather bit-rotten) patches to do that > in the pb/toolchain-desuck branch of oe-classic. I'm not sure whether > any of that stuff will apply to modern oe-core but the general principle > ought still to be valid. > > p. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-core mailing list > Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core -- -Khem _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core