Bug 8375 - The "Marking Package Architecture" section could be clearer
Summary: The "Marking Package Architecture" section could be clearer
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: Development Manual
Classification: Documentation
Component: development (show other bugs)
Version: 1.8
Hardware: x86 Multiple
: Undecided normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Scott Rifenbark
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard: 23 Sept 2015 - IN PROGRESS REVIEW
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2015-09-22 19:35 UTC by ulfalizer
Modified: 2015-09-23 18:23 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
OS type for building Yocto: ---
Type of Regression: ---
Verified:
Documentation change: Done (doc changes complete)


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description ulfalizer 2015-09-22 19:35:33 UTC
I'm new to Yocto. After reading

'By default, packages produced for the target are marked as being specific to
the architecture of the target machine ... However, if the recipe configures
the software to be built specific to the target machine (...), then you should
mark the packages produced as being machine-specific by adding the following to
the recipe: PACKAGE_ARCH = "${MACHINE_ARCH}"'

my first thought was "what's the point of adding it if it's already the default"?

I'd put it as follows instead:

'By default, packages apply to any machine with the same architecture as the
target machine. When a recipe produces packages that are machine-specific, they
should be marked as such by adding the following to the recipe: PACKAGE_ARCH = "${MACHINE_ARCH}"'
Comment 1 Scott Rifenbark 2015-09-23 16:35:49 UTC
Hi, 

I have applied changes to that bulleted item in http://www.yoctoproject.org/docs/1.9/dev-manual/dev-manual.html#new-recipe-packaging.  I did a bit of text massaging as the information is intended to cover not only the PACKAGE_ARCH stuff but the "inherit allarch" stuff as well.  Thus, I did some splitting up of the text so there was a clear introductory topic followed by the two cases.  I also retained the information about the MACHINE value being passed in as I thought it relevant.

Please look this stuff over and let me know if it is okay.  

Thanks,
Scott
Comment 2 ulfalizer 2015-09-23 18:11:52 UTC
Looks good to me!

Thanks,
Ulf
Comment 3 Scott Rifenbark 2015-09-23 18:23:09 UTC
Great - thanks for the quick look.  I am marking RESOLVED/FIXED and setting the doc flag to "Done".

Thanks