On Wed, 2020-05-27 at 19:11 -0400, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote: > On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 10:25:31PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: > > On Wed, 2020-05-27 at 11:59 -0400, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote: > > > On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 08:50:11AM -0700, Khem Raj wrote: > > > > asm/bpf_perf_event.h does not exist in older kernels e.g. ( 4.1 > > > > ) > > > > this helps in using common header across multiple versions of > > > > kernel > > > > going back > > > > > > This check should have been there from the beginning and for > > > every > > > header > > > file. It's big PITA to sync this list up, especially when dealing > > > with > > > different glibc or kernel than OE-Core, e.g. external toolchains, > > > etc. > > > > > > Any objections to making this check more generic for every entry > > > in > > > the list? > > > > Yes, a strong objection. We don't want to support or encourage > > every > > kernel version out there. > > > > I also don't understand why people need to change the libc-headers > > anyway :( > > I already explained my use-case with external toolchains - those > usually come > with specific set of libc-headers. And when those don't match the > list from > OE-Core, it causes problems, trying to support some resemblance of > multilib. > I believe that got disabled completely now for external-toolchains > anyway...
Right, external toolchains I can understand having specific version requirements. What I don't really understand is external toolchains would come with their own headers in most cases I can think of? Cheers, Richard
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#138846): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/138846 Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/74502640/21656 Group Owner: openembedded-core+ow...@lists.openembedded.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
