From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [83.222.23.61] (helo=relay1.mail.masterhost.ru) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LuAnk-0002NO-OW for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 21:29:44 +0200 Received: from [UNAVAILABLE] ([84.17.11.114] helo=mate.hex) by relay1.mail.masterhost.ru with esmtp envelope from authenticated with rik@osrc.info message id 1LuAk1-000LpY-Kv for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Wed, 15 Apr 2009 23:25:49 +0400 From: Roman I Khimov Organization: Altell Ltd. To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 23:25:46 +0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 References: <200904151633.49146.khimov@altell.ru> <1239798960-3586-3-git-send-email-khimov@altell.ru> <20090415190913.GA29623@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20090415190913.GA29623@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <200904152325.47053.khimov@altell.ru> X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 83.222.23.61 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: khimov@altell.ru X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on serenity X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE, SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=no version=3.2.5 X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:14:11 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on linuxtogo.org) Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/11] linux-libc-headers 2.6.23: fix amd64 headers X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 19:29:44 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline On Wednesday 15 April 2009 23:09:13 Khem Raj wrote: > On (15/04/09 16:35), Roman I Khimov wrote: > > --- a/recipes/linux-libc-headers/linux-libc-headers_2.6.23.bb > > +++ b/recipes/linux-libc-headers/linux-libc-headers_2.6.23.bb > > @@ -63,4 +63,16 @@ do_stage () { > > is there any reason not to use sanitized header like we do in do_install > even for do_stage I think this is the way to go for newer kernels and it can be generalized in some .inc for future. This approach is used now in linux-libc-headers_2.6.29.bb, but 2.6.23 historically uses this kind of do_stage and I don't think we should change that now. BTW, we have locally a patch modifying kernel.bbclass to also use headers_install in kernel_do_stage for newer kernels. One of many things I still need to prepare and push.