On Thu, 5 Mar 2015, Rifenbark, Scott M wrote: > I like Nathan's suggestion for the text. Can someone explain to me > though why emenlow is not a good example here? In the > linux-yocto_3.14.bbappend file, KMACHINE_emenlow-noemgd is set equal > to "emenlow". Isn't this equating emenlow-noemgd and emenlow? I am > probably mis-understanding it so I could use some further > explanation.
normally, yes, but there *is* only the emenlow-noemgd machine, there is no longer an emenlow machine. AIUI, there *used* to be both machines, both using the same KMACHINE value, and that would have been a perfect example. personally, i think it would be more informative if you had two or more actual machines mapping to the same KMACHINE value, but that's just me. rday -- ======================================================================== Robert P. J. Day Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA http://crashcourse.ca Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday LinkedIn: http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday ======================================================================== -- _______________________________________________ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto