On Fri, 2016-02-12 at 09:29 +0100, Gary Thomas wrote: > On 2016-02-12 09:17, Richard Purdie wrote: > > On Fri, 2016-02-12 at 04:58 +0100, Gary Thomas wrote: > > > Improve the packaging of the libraries built by this recipe. > > > These > > > are created using special code in the recipe and the debug (-dbg) > > > packages were not being created. Adding these packages allow the > > > libraries in question to be debugged using GDB. > > > > This isn't really policy, the policy is one -dbg package per recipe > > and > > that is how the dependency chains and dbg-pkgs in IMAGE_FEATURES > > work > > and so on. > > > > I'm not arguing this is perfect, its not and I would like to see it > > change. It is how it all works today though. Is there a pressing > > reason > > we need to do something different here? > > Without this change, none of the [renamed] libraries generated by > the ffmpeg recipe have debug symbols available. As is, the recipe > is generating separate -dev packages for each library - how is that > different [policy-wise]? > > Should the -dev and -dbg info for the libraries be bundled into > ffmpeg-dbg and ffmpeg-dev? Or perhaps the machinations generating > the -dev packages in that recipe are just wrong?
There should only be one -dev package too. As you saying the debug symbols are getting placed into the -dev packages? They must be getting placed and hence packaged somewhere? Cheers, Richard -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
