On 5/28/20 6:20 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
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?


this is not a freestanding toolchain, but hosted one, so they need to provide OS (linux) headers. think of case where apps are build just by using this toolchain outside OE, app devs are not expected to provide these headers.

Cheers,

Richard


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.

View/Reply Online (#138857): 
https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/138857
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]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Reply via email to