Re: [oe] meta-linaro and toolchain-layer

2012-04-11 Thread Khem Raj
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote: > > > Why? Do we need another fork? Can you upstream your fixes? its not the intention. infact all changes will be upstreamed to one place whatever that is its a placeholder for development since the patch flow process for maintaining thi

Re: [oe] meta-linaro and toolchain-layer

2012-04-11 Thread Khem Raj
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 8:59 AM, McClintock Matthew-B29882 wrote: > > What is the harm in saving off the 4.6 toolchain recipes off in a > layer that we other users could later add back in if they needed it? I > for see issues where folks will insist on using the same toolchain > they have been usi

Re: [oe] meta-linaro and toolchain-layer

2012-04-11 Thread Denys Dmytriyenko
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 03:48:26PM -0700, Khem Raj wrote: > On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 11:41 PM, Martin Jansa wrote: > > > > I haven't tried gcc-4.7 on my armv4t machines yet, because I fear > > similar issues like with binutils gold (which are still not resolved), > > because nobody uses armv4t much

Re: [oe] meta-linaro and toolchain-layer

2012-04-11 Thread McClintock Matthew-B29882
On Sat, Apr 7, 2012 at 4:08 PM, Khem Raj wrote: > > Use gcc-4.6 from meta-linaro and retire it from toolchain-layer > which means toolchain layer only has gcc-4.5 and eventually > This also means that we don't move gcc-4.6 into toolchain-layer > when its relegated from OE-Core What is the harm in

Re: [oe] meta-linaro and toolchain-layer

2012-04-10 Thread Khem Raj
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 11:41 PM, Martin Jansa wrote: > > I haven't tried gcc-4.7 on my armv4t machines yet, because I fear > similar issues like with binutils gold (which are still not resolved), > because nobody uses armv4t much nowadays :/. yes I have tried qemuarm/armv4t build along with qemua

Re: [oe] meta-linaro and toolchain-layer

2012-04-10 Thread Denys Dmytriyenko
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 08:41:31AM +0200, Martin Jansa wrote: > On Sat, Apr 07, 2012 at 02:08:38PM -0700, Khem Raj wrote: > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > Hi, > > > > Ken Werner @ Linaro has created a meta-linaro layer. I have created a > > github repo of same here ht

Re: [oe] meta-linaro and toolchain-layer

2012-04-09 Thread Martin Jansa
On Sat, Apr 07, 2012 at 02:08:38PM -0700, Khem Raj wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi, > > Ken Werner @ Linaro has created a meta-linaro layer. I have created a > github repo of same here https://github.com/kraj/meta-linaro > > Moving forward soon gcc 4.7 will land i

Re: [oe] meta-linaro and toolchain-layer

2012-04-08 Thread Khem Raj
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012 at 5:43 PM, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote: > On Sat, Apr 07, 2012 at 02:08:38PM -0700, Khem Raj wrote: >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Hi, >> >> Ken Werner @ Linaro has created a meta-linaro layer. I have created a >> github repo of same here https://github.

Re: [oe] meta-linaro and toolchain-layer

2012-04-08 Thread Denys Dmytriyenko
On Sat, Apr 07, 2012 at 02:08:38PM -0700, Khem Raj wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi, > > Ken Werner @ Linaro has created a meta-linaro layer. I have created a > github repo of same here https://github.com/kraj/meta-linaro FWIW, I've been closely monitoring the prog

[oe] meta-linaro and toolchain-layer

2012-04-07 Thread Khem Raj
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, Ken Werner @ Linaro has created a meta-linaro layer. I have created a github repo of same here https://github.com/kraj/meta-linaro Moving forward soon gcc 4.7 will land in OE-Core and 4.6 will be more or less retired. In natural progression it wo