On Mon, 2012-04-09 at 15:25 -0500, Mark Hatle wrote: > And just to be extra clear, I consider it a defect if we can produce a > package > with the same name for two different tune settings.. (the exception being the > hell that is ARM and thumb namings.)
While you might consider that a defect (and it probably is a defensible position to do so), it hasn't historically been considered such in OE. The PACKAGE_ARCH value has, traditionally, been concerned purely with ISA and ABI (i.e. answering the question "can I execute this code?") rather than optimisations. For example, the tune-arm926ejs.inc and tune-xscale.inc files in current oe-core both end up setting PACKAGE_ARCH to "armv5tte" (sic). But those are quite different processors and have different tuning requirements, so the binaries you get are unlikely to be the same. If you were to take the view that the PACKAGE_ARCH must uniquely identify one set of binaries then obviously each of these tunings (and probably all the ARM cpu-specific tunings) would need to set PACKAGE_ARCH to some unique value. p. _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
