On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 04:12:06PM +0200, Gary Thomas wrote: > On 2016-04-11 15:42, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote: > >On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 09:35:48AM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: > >>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? > > > >Thanks, Richard. > > > >I was updating some of our old recipes to work with the latest code and had > >to > >replace dependencies on libblah-dev to blah-dev as well as -staticdev and > >-dbg > >in several places. When tried to dig up any relevant discussion on this > >matter > >either as a discussion or clear explanation of the problem this causes, I > >couldn't find any, hence my inquiry. > > > > You might have been thinking about my problems with -dbg packaging that > currently breaks a number of dependencies. Bug #9104
So, why -dbg cannot follow the example of -dev and -staticdev packages? I.e. in your ffmpeg example it would mean creating all the necessary libblah-dbg packages. Why isn't it the option? -- Denys -- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
