| Submitter | Bernhard Kaindl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2009-11-22 14:45:40 |
| Message ID | <1258901140-30575-1-git-send-email-bernhard.kaindl@gmx.net> |
| Download | mbox | patch |
| Permalink | /patch/1309/ |
| State | Applied, archived |
| Headers | show |
Comments
On Sun, 2009-11-22 at 15:45 +0100, Bernhard Kaindl wrote: > external-toolchain-generic, > external-toolchain: > > * The current external-toolchain recipes which are documented to accept > toolchains built by meta-toolchain actually do not accept such because > they expect ${prefix}/package-status to exist which is provieded by > the poky toolchains but not the current OE meta-toolchain package. > > Fix this by also looking for ${prefix}/usr/lib/opkg/status, which is the > package-status file of the OE meta-toolchain package. > > * Also change the error message which is shown when neither file is found > more explicit. What about changing the meta-toolchain to generate the environment-setup script? While it's not important to have the script for normal building of packages, I've found it helpful to be able to do a quick compile of a test program here or there. Though, I understand that it might be dangerous since some folks might think the environment-setup creates an an entire cross building platform for them when they really want to stay inside OE.... --Chris
Chris Conroy wrote: > On Sun, 2009-11-22 at 15:45 +0100, Bernhard Kaindl wrote: >> external-toolchain-generic, >> external-toolchain: >> >> * The current external-toolchain recipes which are documented to accept >> toolchains built by meta-toolchain actually do not accept such because >> they expect ${prefix}/package-status to exist which is provieded by >> the poky toolchains but not the current OE meta-toolchain package. >> >> Fix this by also looking for ${prefix}/usr/lib/opkg/status, which is the >> package-status file of the OE meta-toolchain package. >> >> * Also change the error message which is shown when neither file is found >> more explicit. > > What about changing the meta-toolchain to generate the environment-setup > script? While it's not important to have the script for normal building > of packages, I've found it helpful to be able to do a quick compile of a > test program here or there. Though, I understand that it might be > dangerous since some folks might think the environment-setup creates an > an entire cross building platform for them when they really want to stay > inside OE.... > > --Chris meta-toolchain does generate environment-setup and so far as I am aware it works fine as a stand-alone toolchain. Is there some reason why I should not be using it as such? Chris S.
On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 17:19 +0000, Chris Simmonds wrote: > meta-toolchain does generate environment-setup and so far as I am aware > it works fine as a stand-alone toolchain. Is there some reason why I > should not be using it as such? > > Chris S. It's fine as just a standalone toolchain. It's just not a "Build Platform." Meaning, you can't just source it and get all the other things that OE gives you. This is perhaps too obvious to even warrant mentioning. I misinterpreted the original patch since I was comparing against my local tree, where we've modified to check for environment-setup rather than package-status (simply as a sanity check for the setting of ${prefix}, so you can safely disregard my previous posting. --Chris
Chris Conroy wrote: > On Mon, 2009-11-23 at 17:19 +0000, Chris Simmonds wrote: >> meta-toolchain does generate environment-setup and so far as I am aware >> it works fine as a stand-alone toolchain. Is there some reason why I >> should not be using it as such? >> >> Chris S. > > It's fine as just a standalone toolchain. It's just not a "Build > Platform." Meaning, you can't just source it and get all the other > things that OE gives you. This is perhaps too obvious to even warrant > mentioning. > > I misinterpreted the original patch since I was comparing against my > local tree, where we've modified to check for environment-setup rather > than package-status (simply as a sanity check for the setting of > ${prefix}, so you can safely disregard my previous posting. > Phew! Thanks for the clarification. Chris S.
Patch
diff --git a/recipes/meta/external-toolchain-generic.bb b/recipes/meta/external-toolchain-generic.bb index 73f823f..13c2392 100644 --- a/recipes/meta/external-toolchain-generic.bb +++ b/recipes/meta/external-toolchain-generic.bb @@ -22,8 +22,8 @@ PR = "r2" inherit sdk do_stage() { - if [ ! -e ${prefix}/package-status ]; then - echo "The external toolchain could not be found in ${prefix}!" + if [ ! -e ${prefix}/package-status -a ! -e ${prefix}/usr/lib/opkg/status ]; then + echo "The package status file of the external toolchain could not be found in ${prefix}!" exit 1 fi diff --git a/recipes/meta/external-toolchain.bb b/recipes/meta/external-toolchain.bb index 4c70054..21b5e32 100644 --- a/recipes/meta/external-toolchain.bb +++ b/recipes/meta/external-toolchain.bb @@ -21,8 +21,8 @@ PR = "r2" inherit sdk do_stage() { - if [ ! -e ${prefix}/package-status ]; then - echo "The external toolchain could not be found in ${prefix}!" + if [ ! -e ${prefix}/package-status -a ! -e ${prefix}/usr/lib/opkg/status ]; then + echo "The package status file of the external toolchain could not be found in ${prefix}!" exit 1 fi
external-toolchain-generic, external-toolchain: * The current external-toolchain recipes which are documented to accept toolchains built by meta-toolchain actually do not accept such because they expect ${prefix}/package-status to exist which is provieded by the poky toolchains but not the current OE meta-toolchain package. Fix this by also looking for ${prefix}/usr/lib/opkg/status, which is the package-status file of the OE meta-toolchain package. * Also change the error message which is shown when neither file is found more explicit. Cc: Denys Dmytriyenko <denis@denix.org> Signed-off-by: Bernhard Kaindl <bernhard.kaindl@gmx.net> external-toolchain-generic.bb | 4 ++-- external-toolchain.bb | 4 ++-- 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)