[04/10] glibc: bring back the needed support for glibc recipes

Submitted by Nitin A Kamble on Aug. 4, 2011, 3:01 p.m.

Details

Message ID 03d062a7104f31d03893833485ec3836c07e8f90.1312469790.git.nitin.a.kamble@intel.com
State New, archived
Headers show

Commit Message

Nitin A Kamble Aug. 4, 2011, 3:01 p.m.
From: Nitin A Kamble <nitin.a.kamble@intel.com>

Signed-off-by: Nitin A Kamble <nitin.a.kamble@intel.com>
---
 meta/conf/distro/include/tclibc-glibc.inc   |   32 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 meta/conf/distro/include/tcmode-default.inc |    5 ++++
 2 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 meta/conf/distro/include/tclibc-glibc.inc

Patch hide | download patch | download mbox

diff --git a/meta/conf/distro/include/tclibc-glibc.inc b/meta/conf/distro/include/tclibc-glibc.inc
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..823195c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meta/conf/distro/include/tclibc-glibc.inc
@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@ 
+#
+# glibc specific configuration
+#
+
+LIBCEXTENSION = "${@['', '-gnu'][(d.getVar('ABIEXTENSION', True) or '') != '']}"
+
+# Add glibc to the overrides.
+OVERRIDES =. "libc-glibc:"
+
+PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/libiconv ?= "glibc"
+PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/libiconv-nativesdk ?= "glibc-nativesdk"
+PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/libintl ?= "glibc"
+PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/libc ?= "glibc"
+PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/libc-nativesdk ?= "glibc-nativesdk"
+PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/libc-locale ?= "glibc-locale"
+
+CXXFLAGS += "-fvisibility-inlines-hidden"
+
+LIBC_DEPENDENCIES = "\
+    libsegfault \
+    glibc \
+    glibc-dbg \
+    glibc-dev \
+    glibc-utils \
+    glibc-thread-db \
+    glibc-localedata-i18n \
+    glibc-gconv-ibm850 \
+    glibc-gconv-cp1252 \
+    glibc-gconv-iso8859-1 \
+    glibc-gconv-iso8859-15 \
+    locale-base-en-gb \
+    "
diff --git a/meta/conf/distro/include/tcmode-default.inc b/meta/conf/distro/include/tcmode-default.inc
index 0d0af38..5f66c9e 100644
--- a/meta/conf/distro/include/tcmode-default.inc
+++ b/meta/conf/distro/include/tcmode-default.inc
@@ -48,6 +48,11 @@  PREFERRED_VERSION_binutils-crosssdk ?= "${BINUVERSION}"
 PREFERRED_VERSION_binutils-cross-canadian ?= "${BINUVERSION}"
 PREFERRED_VERSION_linux-libc-headers ?= "${LINUXLIBCVERSION}"
 PREFERRED_VERSION_linux-libc-headers-nativesdk ?= "${LINUXLIBCVERSION}"
+PREFERRED_VERSION_glibc ?= "${GLIBCVERSION}"
+PREFERRED_VERSION_glibc-locale ?= "${GLIBCVERSION}"
+PREFERRED_VERSION_glibc-nativesdk ?= "${GLIBCVERSION}"
+PREFERRED_VERSION_glibc-initial ?= "${GLIBCVERSION}"
+PREFERRED_VERSION_glibc-initial-nativesdk ?= "${GLIBCVERSION}"
 PREFERRED_VERSION_eglibc                   ?= "${EGLIBCVERSION}"
 PREFERRED_VERSION_eglibc-locale            ?= "${EGLIBCVERSION}"
 PREFERRED_VERSION_eglibc-nativesdk         ?= "${EGLIBCVERSION}"

Comments

Phil Blundell Aug. 4, 2011, 9:50 p.m.
On Thu, 2011-08-04 at 08:01 -0700, nitin.a.kamble@intel.com wrote:
> From: Nitin A Kamble <nitin.a.kamble@intel.com>
> 
> Signed-off-by: Nitin A Kamble <nitin.a.kamble@intel.com>

This commit message is very terse.  Why is this change necessary?

p.
Nitin A Kamble Aug. 4, 2011, 10:04 p.m.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: openembedded-core-bounces@lists.openembedded.org
> [mailto:openembedded-core-bounces@lists.openembedded.org] On Behalf Of
> Phil Blundell
> Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 2:51 PM
> To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer
> Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 04/10] glibc: bring back the needed
> support for glibc recipes
> 
> On Thu, 2011-08-04 at 08:01 -0700, nitin.a.kamble@intel.com wrote:
> > From: Nitin A Kamble <nitin.a.kamble@intel.com>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Nitin A Kamble <nitin.a.kamble@intel.com>
> 
> This commit message is very terse.  Why is this change necessary?

Because meta-x32 layer has glibc, which needs these support files. I will update the commit message in the tree.
Thanks,
Nitin

> 
> p.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Phil Blundell Aug. 4, 2011, 10:10 p.m.
On Thu, 2011-08-04 at 15:04 -0700, Kamble, Nitin A wrote:
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: openembedded-core-bounces@lists.openembedded.org
> > [mailto:openembedded-core-bounces@lists.openembedded.org] On Behalf Of
> > Phil Blundell
> > Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 2:51 PM
> > To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer
> > Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 04/10] glibc: bring back the needed
> > support for glibc recipes
> > 
> > On Thu, 2011-08-04 at 08:01 -0700, nitin.a.kamble@intel.com wrote:
> > > From: Nitin A Kamble <nitin.a.kamble@intel.com>
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Nitin A Kamble <nitin.a.kamble@intel.com>
> > 
> > This commit message is very terse.  Why is this change necessary?
> 
> Because meta-x32 layer has glibc, which needs these support files. I will update the commit message in the tree.

Can't the tclibc-glibc file go in meta-x32 as well, then?

p.
Nitin A Kamble Aug. 4, 2011, 10:47 p.m.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: openembedded-core-bounces@lists.openembedded.org
> [mailto:openembedded-core-bounces@lists.openembedded.org] On Behalf Of
> Phil Blundell
> Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 3:10 PM
> To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer
> Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 04/10] glibc: bring back the needed
> support for glibc recipes
> 
> On Thu, 2011-08-04 at 15:04 -0700, Kamble, Nitin A wrote:
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: openembedded-core-bounces@lists.openembedded.org
> > > [mailto:openembedded-core-bounces@lists.openembedded.org] On Behalf
> Of
> > > Phil Blundell
> > > Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 2:51 PM
> > > To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer
> > > Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 04/10] glibc: bring back the needed
> > > support for glibc recipes
> > >
> > > On Thu, 2011-08-04 at 08:01 -0700, nitin.a.kamble@intel.com wrote:
> > > > From: Nitin A Kamble <nitin.a.kamble@intel.com>
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Nitin A Kamble <nitin.a.kamble@intel.com>
> > >
> > > This commit message is very terse.  Why is this change necessary?
> >
> > Because meta-x32 layer has glibc, which needs these support files. I
> will update the commit message in the tree.
> 
> Can't the tclibc-glibc file go in meta-x32 as well, then?
> 
It can go in the meta-x32 layer, but I think better place for this support file is in the meta layer. It would help avoid duplication of the code in multiple layers.

> p.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Tom Rini Aug. 4, 2011, 10:48 p.m.
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Kamble, Nitin A
<nitin.a.kamble@intel.com> wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: openembedded-core-bounces@lists.openembedded.org
>> [mailto:openembedded-core-bounces@lists.openembedded.org] On Behalf Of
>> Phil Blundell
>> Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 2:51 PM
>> To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer
>> Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 04/10] glibc: bring back the needed
>> support for glibc recipes
>>
>> On Thu, 2011-08-04 at 08:01 -0700, nitin.a.kamble@intel.com wrote:
>> > From: Nitin A Kamble <nitin.a.kamble@intel.com>
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Nitin A Kamble <nitin.a.kamble@intel.com>
>>
>> This commit message is very terse.  Why is this change necessary?
>
> Because meta-x32 layer has glibc, which needs these support files. I will update the commit message in the tree.

Can x32 not use eglibc?
Tom Rini Aug. 4, 2011, 10:49 p.m.
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Kamble, Nitin A
<nitin.a.kamble@intel.com> wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: openembedded-core-bounces@lists.openembedded.org
>> [mailto:openembedded-core-bounces@lists.openembedded.org] On Behalf Of
>> Phil Blundell
>> Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 3:10 PM
>> To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer
>> Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 04/10] glibc: bring back the needed
>> support for glibc recipes
>>
>> On Thu, 2011-08-04 at 15:04 -0700, Kamble, Nitin A wrote:
>> >
>> > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > From: openembedded-core-bounces@lists.openembedded.org
>> > > [mailto:openembedded-core-bounces@lists.openembedded.org] On Behalf
>> Of
>> > > Phil Blundell
>> > > Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 2:51 PM
>> > > To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer
>> > > Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 04/10] glibc: bring back the needed
>> > > support for glibc recipes
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, 2011-08-04 at 08:01 -0700, nitin.a.kamble@intel.com wrote:
>> > > > From: Nitin A Kamble <nitin.a.kamble@intel.com>
>> > > >
>> > > > Signed-off-by: Nitin A Kamble <nitin.a.kamble@intel.com>
>> > >
>> > > This commit message is very terse.  Why is this change necessary?
>> >
>> > Because meta-x32 layer has glibc, which needs these support files. I
>> will update the commit message in the tree.
>>
>> Can't the tclibc-glibc file go in meta-x32 as well, then?
>>
> It can go in the meta-x32 layer, but I think better place for this support file is in the meta layer. It would help avoid duplication of the code in multiple layers.

Part of the answer here is that obsolete / etc things don't belong in
the core, but in other layers that need them.  My read on things is
that we've removed glibc in favor of eglibc...
Nitin A Kamble Aug. 4, 2011, 10:57 p.m.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: openembedded-core-bounces@lists.openembedded.org
> [mailto:openembedded-core-bounces@lists.openembedded.org] On Behalf Of
> Tom Rini
> Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 3:50 PM
> To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer
> Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 04/10] glibc: bring back the needed
> support for glibc recipes
> 
> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Kamble, Nitin A
> <nitin.a.kamble@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: openembedded-core-bounces@lists.openembedded.org
> >> [mailto:openembedded-core-bounces@lists.openembedded.org] On Behalf
> Of
> >> Phil Blundell
> >> Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 3:10 PM
> >> To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer
> >> Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 04/10] glibc: bring back the needed
> >> support for glibc recipes
> >>
> >> On Thu, 2011-08-04 at 15:04 -0700, Kamble, Nitin A wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > -----Original Message-----
> >> > > From: openembedded-core-bounces@lists.openembedded.org
> >> > > [mailto:openembedded-core-bounces@lists.openembedded.org] On
> Behalf
> >> Of
> >> > > Phil Blundell
> >> > > Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 2:51 PM
> >> > > To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer
> >> > > Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 04/10] glibc: bring back the
> needed
> >> > > support for glibc recipes
> >> > >
> >> > > On Thu, 2011-08-04 at 08:01 -0700, nitin.a.kamble@intel.com
> wrote:
> >> > > > From: Nitin A Kamble <nitin.a.kamble@intel.com>
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Signed-off-by: Nitin A Kamble <nitin.a.kamble@intel.com>
> >> > >
> >> > > This commit message is very terse.  Why is this change
> necessary?
> >> >
> >> > Because meta-x32 layer has glibc, which needs these support files.
> I
> >> will update the commit message in the tree.
> >>
> >> Can't the tclibc-glibc file go in meta-x32 as well, then?
> >>
> > It can go in the meta-x32 layer, but I think better place for this
> support file is in the meta layer. It would help avoid duplication of
> the code in multiple layers.
> 
> Part of the answer here is that obsolete / etc things don't belong in
> the core, but in other layers that need them.  My read on things is
> that we've removed glibc in favor of eglibc...

With high demand I will move the glibc file in the meta-x32 layer. I was trying to do what felt right at 1st, but I wasn't aware that eglibc is favored so much over glibc.
> 
> --
> Tom
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Nitin A Kamble Aug. 4, 2011, 10:58 p.m.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: openembedded-core-bounces@lists.openembedded.org
> [mailto:openembedded-core-bounces@lists.openembedded.org] On Behalf Of
> Tom Rini
> Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 3:49 PM
> To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer
> Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 04/10] glibc: bring back the needed
> support for glibc recipes
> 
> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Kamble, Nitin A
> <nitin.a.kamble@intel.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: openembedded-core-bounces@lists.openembedded.org
> >> [mailto:openembedded-core-bounces@lists.openembedded.org] On Behalf
> Of
> >> Phil Blundell
> >> Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 2:51 PM
> >> To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer
> >> Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 04/10] glibc: bring back the needed
> >> support for glibc recipes
> >>
> >> On Thu, 2011-08-04 at 08:01 -0700, nitin.a.kamble@intel.com wrote:
> >> > From: Nitin A Kamble <nitin.a.kamble@intel.com>
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Nitin A Kamble <nitin.a.kamble@intel.com>
> >>
> >> This commit message is very terse.  Why is this change necessary?
> >
> > Because meta-x32 layer has glibc, which needs these support files. I
> will update the commit message in the tree.
> 
> Can x32 not use eglibc?
Not yet, x32 work is done on the glibc tip, and eglibc is not there to pick up the work.

Nitin

> 
> --
> Tom
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Khem Raj Aug. 4, 2011, 11:18 p.m.
On 08/04/2011 08:01 AM, nitin.a.kamble@intel.com wrote:
> From: Nitin A Kamble<nitin.a.kamble@intel.com>
>
> Signed-off-by: Nitin A Kamble<nitin.a.kamble@intel.com>
> ---
>   meta/conf/distro/include/tclibc-glibc.inc   |   32 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>   meta/conf/distro/include/tcmode-default.inc |    5 ++++
>   2 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>   create mode 100644 meta/conf/distro/include/tclibc-glibc.inc
>
> diff --git a/meta/conf/distro/include/tclibc-glibc.inc b/meta/conf/distro/include/tclibc-glibc.inc
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..823195c
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/meta/conf/distro/include/tclibc-glibc.inc
> @@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
> +#
> +# glibc specific configuration
> +#
> +
> +LIBCEXTENSION = "${@['', '-gnu'][(d.getVar('ABIEXTENSION', True) or '') != '']}"

why is this specific to glibc and not eglibc ?
since glibc is deleted from metadata this file should go away too
if its for external toolchains then they could use tclibc-eglibc.inc
or tclibc-uclibc.inc as needed.

I am in favour of generally using linux-gnu extention for eglibc/glibc
based systems.

> +
> +# Add glibc to the overrides.
> +OVERRIDES =. "libc-glibc:"
> +
> +PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/libiconv ?= "glibc"
> +PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/libiconv-nativesdk ?= "glibc-nativesdk"
> +PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/libintl ?= "glibc"
> +PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/libc ?= "glibc"
> +PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/libc-nativesdk ?= "glibc-nativesdk"
> +PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/libc-locale ?= "glibc-locale"
> +
> +CXXFLAGS += "-fvisibility-inlines-hidden"
> +
> +LIBC_DEPENDENCIES = "\
> +    libsegfault \
> +    glibc \
> +    glibc-dbg \
> +    glibc-dev \
> +    glibc-utils \
> +    glibc-thread-db \
> +    glibc-localedata-i18n \
> +    glibc-gconv-ibm850 \
> +    glibc-gconv-cp1252 \
> +    glibc-gconv-iso8859-1 \
> +    glibc-gconv-iso8859-15 \
> +    locale-base-en-gb \
> +    "
> diff --git a/meta/conf/distro/include/tcmode-default.inc b/meta/conf/distro/include/tcmode-default.inc
> index 0d0af38..5f66c9e 100644
> --- a/meta/conf/distro/include/tcmode-default.inc
> +++ b/meta/conf/distro/include/tcmode-default.inc
> @@ -48,6 +48,11 @@ PREFERRED_VERSION_binutils-crosssdk ?= "${BINUVERSION}"
>   PREFERRED_VERSION_binutils-cross-canadian ?= "${BINUVERSION}"
>   PREFERRED_VERSION_linux-libc-headers ?= "${LINUXLIBCVERSION}"
>   PREFERRED_VERSION_linux-libc-headers-nativesdk ?= "${LINUXLIBCVERSION}"
> +PREFERRED_VERSION_glibc ?= "${GLIBCVERSION}"
> +PREFERRED_VERSION_glibc-locale ?= "${GLIBCVERSION}"
> +PREFERRED_VERSION_glibc-nativesdk ?= "${GLIBCVERSION}"
> +PREFERRED_VERSION_glibc-initial ?= "${GLIBCVERSION}"
> +PREFERRED_VERSION_glibc-initial-nativesdk ?= "${GLIBCVERSION}"
>   PREFERRED_VERSION_eglibc                   ?= "${EGLIBCVERSION}"
>   PREFERRED_VERSION_eglibc-locale            ?= "${EGLIBCVERSION}"
>   PREFERRED_VERSION_eglibc-nativesdk         ?= "${EGLIBCVERSION}"
Khem Raj Aug. 4, 2011, 11:33 p.m.
On 08/04/2011 03:47 PM, Kamble, Nitin A wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: openembedded-core-bounces@lists.openembedded.org
>> [mailto:openembedded-core-bounces@lists.openembedded.org] On Behalf Of
>> Phil Blundell
>> Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 3:10 PM
>> To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer
>> Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 04/10] glibc: bring back the needed
>> support for glibc recipes
>>
>> On Thu, 2011-08-04 at 15:04 -0700, Kamble, Nitin A wrote:
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: openembedded-core-bounces@lists.openembedded.org
>>>> [mailto:openembedded-core-bounces@lists.openembedded.org] On Behalf
>> Of
>>>> Phil Blundell
>>>> Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 2:51 PM
>>>> To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer
>>>> Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 04/10] glibc: bring back the needed
>>>> support for glibc recipes
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 2011-08-04 at 08:01 -0700, nitin.a.kamble@intel.com wrote:
>>>>> From: Nitin A Kamble<nitin.a.kamble@intel.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Nitin A Kamble<nitin.a.kamble@intel.com>
>>>>
>>>> This commit message is very terse.  Why is this change necessary?
>>>
>>> Because meta-x32 layer has glibc, which needs these support files. I
>> will update the commit message in the tree.
>>
>> Can't the tclibc-glibc file go in meta-x32 as well, then?
>>
> It can go in the meta-x32 layer, but I think better place for this support file is in the meta layer. It would help avoid duplication of the code in multiple layers.
>

oe-core does not need it. It could be deleted.

>> p.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Openembedded-core mailing list
>> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
>> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Khem Raj Aug. 4, 2011, 11:39 p.m.
On 08/04/2011 03:58 PM, Kamble, Nitin A wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: openembedded-core-bounces@lists.openembedded.org
>> [mailto:openembedded-core-bounces@lists.openembedded.org] On Behalf Of
>> Tom Rini
>> Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 3:49 PM
>> To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer
>> Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 04/10] glibc: bring back the needed
>> support for glibc recipes
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Kamble, Nitin A
>> <nitin.a.kamble@intel.com>  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: openembedded-core-bounces@lists.openembedded.org
>>>> [mailto:openembedded-core-bounces@lists.openembedded.org] On Behalf
>> Of
>>>> Phil Blundell
>>>> Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 2:51 PM
>>>> To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer
>>>> Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 04/10] glibc: bring back the needed
>>>> support for glibc recipes
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 2011-08-04 at 08:01 -0700, nitin.a.kamble@intel.com wrote:
>>>>> From: Nitin A Kamble<nitin.a.kamble@intel.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Nitin A Kamble<nitin.a.kamble@intel.com>
>>>>
>>>> This commit message is very terse.  Why is this change necessary?
>>>
>>> Because meta-x32 layer has glibc, which needs these support files. I
>> will update the commit message in the tree.
>>
>> Can x32 not use eglibc?
> Not yet, x32 work is done on the glibc tip, and eglibc is not there to pick up the work.

glibc tip is pulled into eglibc svn trunk very frequently. So an 
eglibc_svn.bb recipe can get you what you want.

>
> Nitin
>
>>
>> --
>> Tom
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Openembedded-core mailing list
>> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
>> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Nitin A Kamble Aug. 5, 2011, 1:09 a.m.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: openembedded-core-bounces@lists.openembedded.org
> [mailto:openembedded-core-bounces@lists.openembedded.org] On Behalf Of
> Khem Raj
> Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 4:19 PM
> To: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH 04/10] glibc: bring back the needed
> support for glibc recipes
> 
> On 08/04/2011 08:01 AM, nitin.a.kamble@intel.com wrote:
> > From: Nitin A Kamble<nitin.a.kamble@intel.com>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Nitin A Kamble<nitin.a.kamble@intel.com>
> > ---
> >   meta/conf/distro/include/tclibc-glibc.inc   |   32
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >   meta/conf/distro/include/tcmode-default.inc |    5 ++++
> >   2 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >   create mode 100644 meta/conf/distro/include/tclibc-glibc.inc
> >
> > diff --git a/meta/conf/distro/include/tclibc-glibc.inc
> b/meta/conf/distro/include/tclibc-glibc.inc
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 0000000..823195c
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/meta/conf/distro/include/tclibc-glibc.inc
> > @@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
> > +#
> > +# glibc specific configuration
> > +#
> > +
> > +LIBCEXTENSION = "${@['', '-gnu'][(d.getVar('ABIEXTENSION', True) or
> '') != '']}"
> 
> why is this specific to glibc and not eglibc ?

I think that is for multilib. I did not do any changes to the tclibc-glibc.inc files. I just got back the last version before deletion.

> since glibc is deleted from metadata this file should go away too
> if its for external toolchains then they could use tclibc-eglibc.inc
> or tclibc-uclibc.inc as needed.


> 
> I am in favour of generally using linux-gnu extention for eglibc/glibc
> based systems.
> 
> > +
> > +# Add glibc to the overrides.
> > +OVERRIDES =. "libc-glibc:"
> > +
> > +PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/libiconv ?= "glibc"
> > +PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/libiconv-nativesdk ?= "glibc-nativesdk"
> > +PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/libintl ?= "glibc"
> > +PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/libc ?= "glibc"
> > +PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/libc-nativesdk ?= "glibc-nativesdk"
> > +PREFERRED_PROVIDER_virtual/libc-locale ?= "glibc-locale"
> > +
> > +CXXFLAGS += "-fvisibility-inlines-hidden"
> > +
> > +LIBC_DEPENDENCIES = "\
> > +    libsegfault \
> > +    glibc \
> > +    glibc-dbg \
> > +    glibc-dev \
> > +    glibc-utils \
> > +    glibc-thread-db \
> > +    glibc-localedata-i18n \
> > +    glibc-gconv-ibm850 \
> > +    glibc-gconv-cp1252 \
> > +    glibc-gconv-iso8859-1 \
> > +    glibc-gconv-iso8859-15 \
> > +    locale-base-en-gb \
> > +    "
> > diff --git a/meta/conf/distro/include/tcmode-default.inc
> b/meta/conf/distro/include/tcmode-default.inc
> > index 0d0af38..5f66c9e 100644
> > --- a/meta/conf/distro/include/tcmode-default.inc
> > +++ b/meta/conf/distro/include/tcmode-default.inc
> > @@ -48,6 +48,11 @@ PREFERRED_VERSION_binutils-crosssdk ?=
> "${BINUVERSION}"
> >   PREFERRED_VERSION_binutils-cross-canadian ?= "${BINUVERSION}"
> >   PREFERRED_VERSION_linux-libc-headers ?= "${LINUXLIBCVERSION}"
> >   PREFERRED_VERSION_linux-libc-headers-nativesdk ?=
> "${LINUXLIBCVERSION}"
> > +PREFERRED_VERSION_glibc ?= "${GLIBCVERSION}"
> > +PREFERRED_VERSION_glibc-locale ?= "${GLIBCVERSION}"
> > +PREFERRED_VERSION_glibc-nativesdk ?= "${GLIBCVERSION}"
> > +PREFERRED_VERSION_glibc-initial ?= "${GLIBCVERSION}"
> > +PREFERRED_VERSION_glibc-initial-nativesdk ?= "${GLIBCVERSION}"
> >   PREFERRED_VERSION_eglibc                   ?= "${EGLIBCVERSION}"
> >   PREFERRED_VERSION_eglibc-locale            ?= "${EGLIBCVERSION}"
> >   PREFERRED_VERSION_eglibc-nativesdk         ?= "${EGLIBCVERSION}"
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-core mailing list
> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
Richard Purdie Aug. 5, 2011, 3:49 p.m.
On Thu, 2011-08-04 at 15:57 -0700, Kamble, Nitin A wrote:
> > > It can go in the meta-x32 layer, but I think better place for this
> > support file is in the meta layer. It would help avoid duplication of
> > the code in multiple layers.
> > 
> > Part of the answer here is that obsolete / etc things don't belong in
> > the core, but in other layers that need them.  My read on things is
> > that we've removed glibc in favor of eglibc...
> 
> With high demand I will move the glibc file in the meta-x32 layer. I
> was trying to do what felt right at 1st, but I wasn't aware that
> eglibc is favored so much over glibc.

Please just place that file in the x32 layer. If you need the
PREFERRED_VERSION config, please also place that there.

Cheers,

Richard
Richard Purdie Aug. 5, 2011, 3:52 p.m.
On Thu, 2011-08-04 at 16:18 -0700, Khem Raj wrote:
> On 08/04/2011 08:01 AM, nitin.a.kamble@intel.com wrote:
> > From: Nitin A Kamble<nitin.a.kamble@intel.com>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Nitin A Kamble<nitin.a.kamble@intel.com>
> > ---
> >   meta/conf/distro/include/tclibc-glibc.inc   |   32 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >   meta/conf/distro/include/tcmode-default.inc |    5 ++++
> >   2 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >   create mode 100644 meta/conf/distro/include/tclibc-glibc.inc
> >
> > diff --git a/meta/conf/distro/include/tclibc-glibc.inc b/meta/conf/distro/include/tclibc-glibc.inc
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 0000000..823195c
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/meta/conf/distro/include/tclibc-glibc.inc
> > @@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
> > +#
> > +# glibc specific configuration
> > +#
> > +
> > +LIBCEXTENSION = "${@['', '-gnu'][(d.getVar('ABIEXTENSION', True) or '') != '']}"
> 
> why is this specific to glibc and not eglibc ?

eglibc has the same code.

> since glibc is deleted from metadata this file should go away too
> if its for external toolchains then they could use tclibc-eglibc.inc
> or tclibc-uclibc.inc as needed.
> 
> I am in favour of generally using linux-gnu extention for eglibc/glibc
> based systems.

I think it should be up to the user. We've ensured the recent changes
don't change the defaults, you can certainly use linux-gnu if you want
(but it will cause issues as not everything accepts that format as
things stand iirc).

Cheers,

Richard