local.conf.sample: add comments for missing machines

Fill out the commented list of supported machines for completeness.

Signed-off-by: Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@crashcourse.ca>

---


--

I have to note that the project does not test these machines, and they
may not necessarily work. Advertising them in local.conf may result in
frustrating fails for people who are running bitbake for the very
first time.

Alex

On Wed, 11 May 2022 at 12:48, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@crashcourse.ca> wrote:
>
>
> Fill out the commented list of supported machines for completeness.
>
> Signed-off-by: Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@crashcourse.ca>
>
> ---
>
> diff --git a/meta/conf/local.conf.sample b/meta/conf/local.conf.sample
> index c05691de58..f0b8952947 100644
> --- a/meta/conf/local.conf.sample
> +++ b/meta/conf/local.conf.sample
> @@ -20,9 +20,13 @@
>  #
>  #MACHINE ?= "qemuarm"
>  #MACHINE ?= "qemuarm64"
> +#MACHINE ?= "qemuarmv5"
>  #MACHINE ?= "qemumips"
>  #MACHINE ?= "qemumips64"
>  #MACHINE ?= "qemuppc"
> +#MACHINE ?= "qemuppc64"
> +#MACHINE ?= "qemuriscv32"
> +#MACHINE ?= "qemuriscv64"
>  #MACHINE ?= "qemux86"
>  #MACHINE ?= "qemux86-64"
>  #
>
> --
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
> View/Reply Online (#165494): https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/message/165494
> Mute This Topic: https://lists.openembedded.org/mt/91032627/1686489
> Group Owner: openembedded-core+owner@lists.openembedded.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.openembedded.org/g/openembedded-core/unsub [alex.kanavin@gmail.com]
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>

On Wed, 11 May 2022, Alexander Kanavin wrote:

> I have to note that the project does not test these machines, and they
> may not necessarily work. Advertising them in local.conf may result in
> frustrating fails for people who are running bitbake for the very
> first time.
>
> Alex
>
> On Wed, 11 May 2022 at 12:48, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@crashcourse.ca> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Fill out the commented list of supported machines for completeness.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@crashcourse.ca>
> >
> > ---
> >
> > diff --git a/meta/conf/local.conf.sample b/meta/conf/local.conf.sample
> > index c05691de58..f0b8952947 100644
> > --- a/meta/conf/local.conf.sample
> > +++ b/meta/conf/local.conf.sample
> > @@ -20,9 +20,13 @@
> >  #
> >  #MACHINE ?= "qemuarm"
> >  #MACHINE ?= "qemuarm64"
> > +#MACHINE ?= "qemuarmv5"
> >  #MACHINE ?= "qemumips"
> >  #MACHINE ?= "qemumips64"
> >  #MACHINE ?= "qemuppc"
> > +#MACHINE ?= "qemuppc64"
> > +#MACHINE ?= "qemuriscv32"
> > +#MACHINE ?= "qemuriscv64"
> >  #MACHINE ?= "qemux86"
> >  #MACHINE ?= "qemux86-64"
> >  #

  that's the first thing i thought of, but what is a cleaner solution?
if those machine definitions come with OE, then why should they be
treated as second-class citizens? if those machines aren't tested,
then maybe an extra comment pointing that out would be appropriate.

  i just think this should be consistent. thoughts?

rday

I would rather just refer to the directory where 'additional, less
well tested machines are'.

Alex

On Wed, 11 May 2022 at 13:14, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@crashcourse.ca> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 11 May 2022, Alexander Kanavin wrote:
>
> > I have to note that the project does not test these machines, and they
> > may not necessarily work. Advertising them in local.conf may result in
> > frustrating fails for people who are running bitbake for the very
> > first time.
> >
> > Alex
> >
> > On Wed, 11 May 2022 at 12:48, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@crashcourse.ca> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Fill out the commented list of supported machines for completeness.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@crashcourse.ca>
> > >
> > > ---
> > >
> > > diff --git a/meta/conf/local.conf.sample b/meta/conf/local.conf.sample
> > > index c05691de58..f0b8952947 100644
> > > --- a/meta/conf/local.conf.sample
> > > +++ b/meta/conf/local.conf.sample
> > > @@ -20,9 +20,13 @@
> > >  #
> > >  #MACHINE ?= "qemuarm"
> > >  #MACHINE ?= "qemuarm64"
> > > +#MACHINE ?= "qemuarmv5"
> > >  #MACHINE ?= "qemumips"
> > >  #MACHINE ?= "qemumips64"
> > >  #MACHINE ?= "qemuppc"
> > > +#MACHINE ?= "qemuppc64"
> > > +#MACHINE ?= "qemuriscv32"
> > > +#MACHINE ?= "qemuriscv64"
> > >  #MACHINE ?= "qemux86"
> > >  #MACHINE ?= "qemux86-64"
> > >  #
>
>   that's the first thing i thought of, but what is a cleaner solution?
> if those machine definitions come with OE, then why should they be
> treated as second-class citizens? if those machines aren't tested,
> then maybe an extra comment pointing that out would be appropriate.
>
>   i just think this should be consistent. thoughts?
>
> rday

On Wed, 11 May 2022, Alexander Kanavin wrote:

> I would rather just refer to the directory where 'additional, less
> well tested machines are'.
>
> Alex

  sure, something like that works for me.

rday