Why is it bad to expect all packages build for all the machine/distro ? I would think that would be a more "ideal" situation especially if its a supported machine and distro
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Philip Balister <phi...@balister.org> wrote: > On 08/30/2010 02:35 PM, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote: >> >> 2010/8/30 Philip Balister<phi...@balister.org>: >>> >>> On 08/30/2010 01:47 PM, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote: >>>> >>>> The current beagleboard angstrom and minimal distro's (and maybe >>>> others) use the linux-omap-psp_2.6.32.bb recipe to build the kernel. >>> >>> What is iscsi and why would I need it on the Beagleboard? >> >> http://stgt.sourceforge.net/ >> >> the pacakge is from >> http://iscsitarget.sourceforge.net/ >> It is used by tgt (http://stgt.sourceforge.net/) >> >> with it you can e.g. mount an iscsi disk. >> iscsi is for instance also supported by windows 7 and by various NAS-es. >> Its throughput is better than Samba or NFS. >> >> So for beagle it could act as mechanism to e.g. retrieve content from a >> NAS. > > So the trade off is a kernel that has the best chance of fully supporting > the OMAP3 peripherals, or attaching to a NAS that is windows centric. > > The point I am trying to make is we can't expect all packages to build for > every MACHINE/DISTRO combination. People have to make tradeoffs. > > Philip > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-devel mailing list > Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel > _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel