Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] unique -dev package

[Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>]

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