| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Files |
|---|
|
Setting OE's PATH for the 'cd' command has no real effect.
In the normal case it has no effect for the gnu-configize command
either (since OE's PATH is already set in the context which runs
do_preconfigure) but it may be useful when manually re-running a
failed gnu-configize commandline copied from an error log, etc.
Signed-off-by: Andre McCurdy <armccurdy@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
|
|
This means you can have one gcc version for some gcc recipes
(e.g. crosssdk/nativesdk) and another gcc version for target code.
Also remove the preferred version entry from the default toolchains
list since the version issue is now handled automatically.
We also need to specifically handle gcc-source in the license handling
code since expanding ${PV} in the base class isn't possible. Since
gcc-source doesn't generate any packages directly this shouldn't be
an issue and whitelisting in this way is easiest (and matches the
rest of the toolchain handling).
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
|
|
gcc-source don't do do_package_write_rpm, so we should set
PACKAGES = "" to avoid the building error if we want generate srpm,
otherwise, we get the error as below.
ERROR: Task do_deploy_archives in meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-source_4.9.bb \
depends upon non-existent task do_package_write_rpm in \
meta/recipes-devtools/gcc/gcc-source_4.9.bb
Signed-off-by: Bian Naimeng <biannm@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Ross Burton <ross.burton@intel.com>
|
|
The current implementation of shared work for gcc is at best confusing. It relies
on the fetch/unpack/patch tasks having exactly the same stamps and if this gets
broken for some reason, its hard to figure out what the problem is. It also
leads to complex code in bitbake.
The benefits of shared work for gcc are clear but a better approach is needed. This
patch adjusts things so that a single new recipe (gcc-source) provides the
fetch/unpack/patch/preconfigure tasks, the rest of gcc simply depends on these tasks
and have no fetch/unpack/patch tasks of their own.
This means we should get the significant benefits (disk usage/performance) of the
single source tree but in a way which has less potential for problems and is
easier for people to understand. The cost is an extra recipe/some inc files
which is probably a good tradeoff.
Signed-off-by: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
|
