On Sun, 2016-04-10 at 21:49 -0400, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote: > On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 09:19:32AM +0800, Robert Yang wrote: > > On 04/11/2016 06:51 AM, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 05:58:13AM -0700, Robert Yang wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > I think that one recipe should only have one -dev package, I'm > > > > not sure > > > > whether this is right or not, please feel free to give your > > > > comments, we > > > > > > I know it is already 1 year since this change. But I can't seem > > > to find any > > > discussion or any explanation to why this change was required and > > > what > > > specific problem it was supposed to fix. Please point me to a > > > clear reasoning > > > of this change. Thanks. > > > > There is only one source package, so there should be only one pack > > of header > > files, dev libs, and so on, and they should be placed in a uniq > > pkg. > > Since you are using "should" twice in the same sentence, can you > please point > me to a ratified RFC?
I couldn't seem to see the history of this discussion in my mail folder but I do remember some patches along these lines. The reason for a single -dev package is that the "package chain" functions we have assumes this. I know there are some specific cases where we do have multiple -dev packages (qt4, gcc-runtime) but they are very much in the minority and are special cases. I'm definitely on record as saying the depchains code needs revisiting and redoing, preferably with a structured rethink so that we can better handle situations like this. Until that is done, multiple -dev packages can cause issues and we did remove some where there didn't seem to be any real benefit. Which case is causing problems for you? Cheers, Richard -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
