| Message ID | 1329940246-28769-1-git-send-email-msm@freescale.com |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Commit | 77a7fad52a7ff6a6c5e6c48d7d259055920a3774 |
| Headers | show |
diff --git a/meta-oe/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-4_6-branch-linaro-backports.inc b/meta-oe/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-4_6-branch-linaro-backports.inc index 882876e..b0fd3c7 100644 --- a/meta-oe/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-4_6-branch-linaro-backports.inc +++ b/meta-oe/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-4_6-branch-linaro-backports.inc @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -GCC-4_6-BRANCH-LINARO-BACKPORTS = " \ +GCC-4_6-BRANCH-LINARO-BACKPORTS ?= " \ file://linaro/gcc-4.6-linaro-r106720.patch \ file://linaro/gcc-4.6-linaro-r106733.patch \ file://linaro/gcc-4.6-linaro-r106737.patch \
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Matthew McClintock <msm@freescale.com> wrote: > This is useful when we want to include meta-oe as is, and also > want to modify the toolchain such that these patches don't apply > cleanly I think the right thing to do is to spin this out into a layer of its own. which we discussed on another thread. if your intention is to just get non/oe-core overridden recipes from meta-oe. This patch not really incorrect but can be then avoided. > > Signed-off-by: Matthew McClintock <msm@freescale.com> > --- > .../gcc/gcc-4_6-branch-linaro-backports.inc | 2 +- > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/meta-oe/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-4_6-branch-linaro-backports.inc b/meta-oe/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-4_6-branch-linaro-backports.inc > index 882876e..b0fd3c7 100644 > --- a/meta-oe/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-4_6-branch-linaro-backports.inc > +++ b/meta-oe/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-4_6-branch-linaro-backports.inc > @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ > -GCC-4_6-BRANCH-LINARO-BACKPORTS = " \ > +GCC-4_6-BRANCH-LINARO-BACKPORTS ?= " \ > file://linaro/gcc-4.6-linaro-r106720.patch \ > file://linaro/gcc-4.6-linaro-r106733.patch \ > file://linaro/gcc-4.6-linaro-r106737.patch \ > -- > 1.7.6.1 > > > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-devel mailing list > Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Matthew McClintock <msm@freescale.com> wrote: >> This is useful when we want to include meta-oe as is, and also >> want to modify the toolchain such that these patches don't apply >> cleanly > > I think the right thing to do is to spin this out into a layer of its > own. which we discussed on another thread. > if your intention is to just get non/oe-core overridden recipes from > meta-oe. This patch not really incorrect > but can be then avoided. How can I avoid this? If I add the meta-oe layer and I'm using gcc-4.6 then these seem to always get pulled in via SRC_URI_append? Is there a better work around here? gcc-4.6.bbappend: SRC_URI_append = " ${GCC-4_6-BRANCH-LINARO-BACKPORTS}" -M
On (23/02/12 01:43), McClintock Matthew-B29882 wrote: > On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Matthew McClintock <msm@freescale.com> wrote: > >> This is useful when we want to include meta-oe as is, and also > >> want to modify the toolchain such that these patches don't apply > >> cleanly > > > > I think the right thing to do is to spin this out into a layer of its > > own. which we discussed on another thread. > > if your intention is to just get non/oe-core overridden recipes from > > meta-oe. This patch not really incorrect > > but can be then avoided. > > How can I avoid this? If I add the meta-oe layer and I'm using gcc-4.6 > then these seem to always get pulled in via SRC_URI_append? Is there a > better work around here? Right now no unless we move it out into a layer of its own > > gcc-4.6.bbappend: > > SRC_URI_append = " ${GCC-4_6-BRANCH-LINARO-BACKPORTS}" > > -M > > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-devel mailing list > Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 2:29 AM, Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> wrote: > On (23/02/12 01:43), McClintock Matthew-B29882 wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Matthew McClintock <msm@freescale.com> wrote: >> >> This is useful when we want to include meta-oe as is, and also >> >> want to modify the toolchain such that these patches don't apply >> >> cleanly >> > >> > I think the right thing to do is to spin this out into a layer of its >> > own. which we discussed on another thread. >> > if your intention is to just get non/oe-core overridden recipes from >> > meta-oe. This patch not really incorrect >> > but can be then avoided. >> >> How can I avoid this? If I add the meta-oe layer and I'm using gcc-4.6 >> then these seem to always get pulled in via SRC_URI_append? Is there a >> better work around here? > > Right now no unless we move it out into a layer of its own Can we apply this in the interim? -M
This is useful when we want to include meta-oe as is, and also want to modify the toolchain such that these patches don't apply cleanly Signed-off-by: Matthew McClintock <msm@freescale.com> --- .../gcc/gcc-4_6-branch-linaro-backports.inc | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)