* [RFC PATCH 0/2] unique -dev package
@ 2015-04-07 12:58 Robert Yang
2015-04-07 12:58 ` [RFC PATCH 1/2] xz: remove xz-dev from PACKAGES Robert Yang
` (3 more replies)
0 siblings, 4 replies; 16+ messages in thread
From: Robert Yang @ 2015-04-07 12:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: openembedded-core
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
still have about 30 recipes in oe-core which have more than one dev
packages, more info:
https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7481
// Robert
The following changes since commit fbaddd724855a829698d853a70eee86118d6a5e7:
package_manager: call createrepo with --dbpath pointing inside WORKDIR (2015-04-02 12:00:55 +0100)
are available in the git repository at:
git://git.openembedded.org/openembedded-core-contrib rbt/dev
http://cgit.openembedded.org/cgit.cgi/openembedded-core-contrib/log/?h=rbt/dev
Robert Yang (2):
xz: remove xz-dev from PACKAGES
bzip2: remove bzip2-dev from PACKAGES
meta/recipes-extended/bzip2/bzip2_1.0.6.bb | 3 ++-
meta/recipes-extended/xz/xz_5.2.0.bb | 2 +-
2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
--
1.7.9.5
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread* [RFC PATCH 1/2] xz: remove xz-dev from PACKAGES 2015-04-07 12:58 [RFC PATCH 0/2] unique -dev package Robert Yang @ 2015-04-07 12:58 ` Robert Yang 2015-04-07 12:58 ` [RFC PATCH 2/2] bzip2: remove bzip2-dev " Robert Yang ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Robert Yang @ 2015-04-07 12:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: openembedded-core There should be only one dev package which is liblzma-dev, so remove xz-dev. Signed-off-by: Robert Yang <liezhi.yang@windriver.com> --- meta/recipes-extended/xz/xz_5.2.0.bb | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/meta/recipes-extended/xz/xz_5.2.0.bb b/meta/recipes-extended/xz/xz_5.2.0.bb index 3439ec9..8c3eb13 100644 --- a/meta/recipes-extended/xz/xz_5.2.0.bb +++ b/meta/recipes-extended/xz/xz_5.2.0.bb @@ -8,7 +8,6 @@ SECTION = "base" # appears to be used for DOS builds. So we're left with GPLv2+ and PD. LICENSE = "GPLv2+ & GPLv3+ & LGPLv2.1+ & PD" LICENSE_${PN} = "GPLv2+" -LICENSE_${PN}-dev = "GPLv2+" LICENSE_${PN}-staticdev = "GPLv2+" LICENSE_${PN}-doc = "GPLv2+" LICENSE_${PN}-dbg = "GPLv2+" @@ -31,6 +30,7 @@ SRC_URI[sha256sum] = "231ef369982240bb20ed7cffa52bb12a4a297ce6871f480ab85e8a7ba9 inherit autotools gettext PACKAGES =+ "liblzma liblzma-dev liblzma-staticdev liblzma-dbg" +PACKAGES_remove = "xz-dev xz-staticdev" FILES_liblzma = "${libdir}/liblzma*${SOLIBS}" FILES_liblzma-dev = "${includedir}/lzma* ${libdir}/liblzma*${SOLIBSDEV} ${libdir}/liblzma.la ${libdir}/pkgconfig/liblzma.pc" -- 1.7.9.5 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* [RFC PATCH 2/2] bzip2: remove bzip2-dev from PACKAGES 2015-04-07 12:58 [RFC PATCH 0/2] unique -dev package Robert Yang 2015-04-07 12:58 ` [RFC PATCH 1/2] xz: remove xz-dev from PACKAGES Robert Yang @ 2015-04-07 12:58 ` Robert Yang 2015-04-08 1:34 ` Khem Raj 2015-04-07 15:04 ` [RFC PATCH 0/2] unique -dev package Richard Purdie 2016-04-10 22:51 ` Denys Dmytriyenko 3 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Robert Yang @ 2015-04-07 12:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: openembedded-core There should be only one dev package which is libbz2-dev, so remove bzip2-dev. Signed-off-by: Robert Yang <liezhi.yang@windriver.com> --- meta/recipes-extended/bzip2/bzip2_1.0.6.bb | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/meta/recipes-extended/bzip2/bzip2_1.0.6.bb b/meta/recipes-extended/bzip2/bzip2_1.0.6.bb index ed12277..d1d1c8d 100644 --- a/meta/recipes-extended/bzip2/bzip2_1.0.6.bb +++ b/meta/recipes-extended/bzip2/bzip2_1.0.6.bb @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ SRC_URI[md5sum] = "00b516f4704d4a7cb50a1d97e6e8e15b" SRC_URI[sha256sum] = "a2848f34fcd5d6cf47def00461fcb528a0484d8edef8208d6d2e2909dc61d9cd" PACKAGES =+ "libbz2 libbz2-dev libbz2-staticdev" +PACKAGES_remove = "bzip2-dev bzip2-staticdev" CFLAGS_append = " -fPIC -fpic -Winline -fno-strength-reduce -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64" @@ -35,7 +36,7 @@ do_install_ptest () { FILES_libbz2 = "${libdir}/lib*${SOLIBS}" -FILES_libbz2-dev = "${includedir} ${libdir}/lib*${SOLIBSDEV}" +FILES_libbz2-dev = "${includedir} ${libdir}/lib*${SOLIBSDEV} ${libdir}/lib*.la" SECTION_libbz2-dev = "devel" RDEPENDS_libbz2-dev = "libbz2 (= ${EXTENDPKGV})" -- 1.7.9.5 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] bzip2: remove bzip2-dev from PACKAGES 2015-04-07 12:58 ` [RFC PATCH 2/2] bzip2: remove bzip2-dev " Robert Yang @ 2015-04-08 1:34 ` Khem Raj 2015-04-08 1:55 ` Robert Yang 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Khem Raj @ 2015-04-08 1:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Robert Yang; +Cc: openembedded-core > On Apr 7, 2015, at 5:58 AM, Robert Yang <liezhi.yang@windriver.com> wrote: > > There should be only one dev package which is libbz2-dev, so remove > bzip2-dev. > > Signed-off-by: Robert Yang <liezhi.yang@windriver.com> > --- > meta/recipes-extended/bzip2/bzip2_1.0.6.bb | 3 ++- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/meta/recipes-extended/bzip2/bzip2_1.0.6.bb b/meta/recipes-extended/bzip2/bzip2_1.0.6.bb > index ed12277..d1d1c8d 100644 > --- a/meta/recipes-extended/bzip2/bzip2_1.0.6.bb > +++ b/meta/recipes-extended/bzip2/bzip2_1.0.6.bb > @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ SRC_URI[md5sum] = "00b516f4704d4a7cb50a1d97e6e8e15b" > SRC_URI[sha256sum] = "a2848f34fcd5d6cf47def00461fcb528a0484d8edef8208d6d2e2909dc61d9cd" > > PACKAGES =+ "libbz2 libbz2-dev libbz2-staticdev" > +PACKAGES_remove = "bzip2-dev bzip2-staticdev” why remove ${PN}-dev ? others should be removed IMO > > CFLAGS_append = " -fPIC -fpic -Winline -fno-strength-reduce -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64" > > @@ -35,7 +36,7 @@ do_install_ptest () { > > FILES_libbz2 = "${libdir}/lib*${SOLIBS}" > > -FILES_libbz2-dev = "${includedir} ${libdir}/lib*${SOLIBSDEV}" > +FILES_libbz2-dev = "${includedir} ${libdir}/lib*${SOLIBSDEV} ${libdir}/lib*.la" > SECTION_libbz2-dev = "devel" > RDEPENDS_libbz2-dev = "libbz2 (= ${EXTENDPKGV})" > > -- > 1.7.9.5 > > -- > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-core mailing list > Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] bzip2: remove bzip2-dev from PACKAGES 2015-04-08 1:34 ` Khem Raj @ 2015-04-08 1:55 ` Robert Yang 2015-04-08 2:10 ` Khem Raj 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Robert Yang @ 2015-04-08 1:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Khem Raj; +Cc: openembedded-core On 04/08/2015 09:34 AM, Khem Raj wrote: > >> On Apr 7, 2015, at 5:58 AM, Robert Yang <liezhi.yang@windriver.com> wrote: >> >> There should be only one dev package which is libbz2-dev, so remove >> bzip2-dev. >> >> Signed-off-by: Robert Yang <liezhi.yang@windriver.com> >> --- >> meta/recipes-extended/bzip2/bzip2_1.0.6.bb | 3 ++- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/meta/recipes-extended/bzip2/bzip2_1.0.6.bb b/meta/recipes-extended/bzip2/bzip2_1.0.6.bb >> index ed12277..d1d1c8d 100644 >> --- a/meta/recipes-extended/bzip2/bzip2_1.0.6.bb >> +++ b/meta/recipes-extended/bzip2/bzip2_1.0.6.bb >> @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ SRC_URI[md5sum] = "00b516f4704d4a7cb50a1d97e6e8e15b" >> SRC_URI[sha256sum] = "a2848f34fcd5d6cf47def00461fcb528a0484d8edef8208d6d2e2909dc61d9cd" >> >> PACKAGES =+ "libbz2 libbz2-dev libbz2-staticdev" >> +PACKAGES_remove = "bzip2-dev bzip2-staticdev” > > why remove ${PN}-dev ? others should be removed IMO I think that it had added libbz2-dev was because debian/ubuntu uses libbz2-dev, the similar to xz. // Robert > >> >> CFLAGS_append = " -fPIC -fpic -Winline -fno-strength-reduce -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64" >> >> @@ -35,7 +36,7 @@ do_install_ptest () { >> >> FILES_libbz2 = "${libdir}/lib*${SOLIBS}" >> >> -FILES_libbz2-dev = "${includedir} ${libdir}/lib*${SOLIBSDEV}" >> +FILES_libbz2-dev = "${includedir} ${libdir}/lib*${SOLIBSDEV} ${libdir}/lib*.la" >> SECTION_libbz2-dev = "devel" >> RDEPENDS_libbz2-dev = "libbz2 (= ${EXTENDPKGV})" >> >> -- >> 1.7.9.5 >> >> -- >> _______________________________________________ >> Openembedded-core mailing list >> Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org >> http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core > > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] bzip2: remove bzip2-dev from PACKAGES 2015-04-08 1:55 ` Robert Yang @ 2015-04-08 2:10 ` Khem Raj 2015-04-08 2:14 ` Robert Yang 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Khem Raj @ 2015-04-08 2:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Robert Yang; +Cc: openembedded-core > On Apr 7, 2015, at 6:55 PM, Robert Yang <liezhi.yang@windriver.com> wrote: > > > > On 04/08/2015 09:34 AM, Khem Raj wrote: >> >>> On Apr 7, 2015, at 5:58 AM, Robert Yang <liezhi.yang@windriver.com> wrote: >>> >>> There should be only one dev package which is libbz2-dev, so remove >>> bzip2-dev. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Robert Yang <liezhi.yang@windriver.com> >>> --- >>> meta/recipes-extended/bzip2/bzip2_1.0.6.bb | 3 ++- >>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/meta/recipes-extended/bzip2/bzip2_1.0.6.bb b/meta/recipes-extended/bzip2/bzip2_1.0.6.bb >>> index ed12277..d1d1c8d 100644 >>> --- a/meta/recipes-extended/bzip2/bzip2_1.0.6.bb >>> +++ b/meta/recipes-extended/bzip2/bzip2_1.0.6.bb >>> @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ SRC_URI[md5sum] = "00b516f4704d4a7cb50a1d97e6e8e15b" >>> SRC_URI[sha256sum] = "a2848f34fcd5d6cf47def00461fcb528a0484d8edef8208d6d2e2909dc61d9cd" >>> >>> PACKAGES =+ "libbz2 libbz2-dev libbz2-staticdev" >>> +PACKAGES_remove = "bzip2-dev bzip2-staticdev” >> >> why remove ${PN}-dev ? others should be removed IMO > > > I think that it had added libbz2-dev was because debian/ubuntu uses > libbz2-dev, the similar to xz. we have rpm and opkg hats as well. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] bzip2: remove bzip2-dev from PACKAGES 2015-04-08 2:10 ` Khem Raj @ 2015-04-08 2:14 ` Robert Yang 0 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Robert Yang @ 2015-04-08 2:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Khem Raj; +Cc: openembedded-core On 04/08/2015 10:10 AM, Khem Raj wrote: > >> On Apr 7, 2015, at 6:55 PM, Robert Yang <liezhi.yang@windriver.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 04/08/2015 09:34 AM, Khem Raj wrote: >>> >>>> On Apr 7, 2015, at 5:58 AM, Robert Yang <liezhi.yang@windriver.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> There should be only one dev package which is libbz2-dev, so remove >>>> bzip2-dev. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Robert Yang <liezhi.yang@windriver.com> >>>> --- >>>> meta/recipes-extended/bzip2/bzip2_1.0.6.bb | 3 ++- >>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/meta/recipes-extended/bzip2/bzip2_1.0.6.bb b/meta/recipes-extended/bzip2/bzip2_1.0.6.bb >>>> index ed12277..d1d1c8d 100644 >>>> --- a/meta/recipes-extended/bzip2/bzip2_1.0.6.bb >>>> +++ b/meta/recipes-extended/bzip2/bzip2_1.0.6.bb >>>> @@ -17,6 +17,7 @@ SRC_URI[md5sum] = "00b516f4704d4a7cb50a1d97e6e8e15b" >>>> SRC_URI[sha256sum] = "a2848f34fcd5d6cf47def00461fcb528a0484d8edef8208d6d2e2909dc61d9cd" >>>> >>>> PACKAGES =+ "libbz2 libbz2-dev libbz2-staticdev" >>>> +PACKAGES_remove = "bzip2-dev bzip2-staticdev” >>> >>> why remove ${PN}-dev ? others should be removed IMO >> >> >> I think that it had added libbz2-dev was because debian/ubuntu uses >> libbz2-dev, the similar to xz. > > we have rpm and opkg hats as well. OK, I will remove libbz2-dev as you and RP preferred. // Robert > > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] unique -dev package 2015-04-07 12:58 [RFC PATCH 0/2] unique -dev package Robert Yang 2015-04-07 12:58 ` [RFC PATCH 1/2] xz: remove xz-dev from PACKAGES Robert Yang 2015-04-07 12:58 ` [RFC PATCH 2/2] bzip2: remove bzip2-dev " Robert Yang @ 2015-04-07 15:04 ` Richard Purdie 2016-04-10 22:51 ` Denys Dmytriyenko 3 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Richard Purdie @ 2015-04-07 15:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Robert Yang; +Cc: openembedded-core On Tue, 2015-04-07 at 05:58 -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 > still have about 30 recipes in oe-core which have more than one dev > packages, more info: > https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7481 I'd much prefer that ${PN}-dev was the dev package rather than the way round that this patch series has things... Cheers, Richard ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] unique -dev package 2015-04-07 12:58 [RFC PATCH 0/2] unique -dev package Robert Yang ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 2015-04-07 15:04 ` [RFC PATCH 0/2] unique -dev package Richard Purdie @ 2016-04-10 22:51 ` Denys Dmytriyenko 2016-04-11 1:19 ` Robert Yang 3 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Denys Dmytriyenko @ 2016-04-10 22:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Robert Yang; +Cc: openembedded-core 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. -- Denys > still have about 30 recipes in oe-core which have more than one dev > packages, more info: > https://bugzilla.yoctoproject.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7481 > > // Robert > > The following changes since commit fbaddd724855a829698d853a70eee86118d6a5e7: > > package_manager: call createrepo with --dbpath pointing inside WORKDIR (2015-04-02 12:00:55 +0100) > > are available in the git repository at: > > git://git.openembedded.org/openembedded-core-contrib rbt/dev > http://cgit.openembedded.org/cgit.cgi/openembedded-core-contrib/log/?h=rbt/dev > > Robert Yang (2): > xz: remove xz-dev from PACKAGES > bzip2: remove bzip2-dev from PACKAGES > > meta/recipes-extended/bzip2/bzip2_1.0.6.bb | 3 ++- > meta/recipes-extended/xz/xz_5.2.0.bb | 2 +- > 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > -- > 1.7.9.5 > > -- > _______________________________________________ > Openembedded-core mailing list > Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org > http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] unique -dev package 2016-04-10 22:51 ` Denys Dmytriyenko @ 2016-04-11 1:19 ` Robert Yang 2016-04-11 1:49 ` Denys Dmytriyenko 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Robert Yang @ 2016-04-11 1:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Denys Dmytriyenko; +Cc: openembedded-core 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. // Robert > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] unique -dev package 2016-04-11 1:19 ` Robert Yang @ 2016-04-11 1:49 ` Denys Dmytriyenko 2016-04-11 8:35 ` Richard Purdie 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Denys Dmytriyenko @ 2016-04-11 1:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Robert Yang; +Cc: openembedded-core 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? -- Denys ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] unique -dev package 2016-04-11 1:49 ` Denys Dmytriyenko @ 2016-04-11 8:35 ` Richard Purdie 2016-04-11 13:42 ` Denys Dmytriyenko 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Richard Purdie @ 2016-04-11 8:35 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Denys Dmytriyenko, Robert Yang; +Cc: openembedded-core 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] unique -dev package 2016-04-11 8:35 ` Richard Purdie @ 2016-04-11 13:42 ` Denys Dmytriyenko 2016-04-11 14:12 ` Gary Thomas 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Denys Dmytriyenko @ 2016-04-11 13:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Richard Purdie; +Cc: openembedded-core 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. -- Denys ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] unique -dev package 2016-04-11 13:42 ` Denys Dmytriyenko @ 2016-04-11 14:12 ` Gary Thomas 2016-04-11 19:10 ` Denys Dmytriyenko 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Gary Thomas @ 2016-04-11 14:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: openembedded-core 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 -- ------------------------------------------------------------ Gary Thomas | Consulting for the MLB Associates | Embedded world ------------------------------------------------------------ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] unique -dev package 2016-04-11 14:12 ` Gary Thomas @ 2016-04-11 19:10 ` Denys Dmytriyenko 2016-04-11 19:40 ` Burton, Ross 0 siblings, 1 reply; 16+ messages in thread From: Denys Dmytriyenko @ 2016-04-11 19:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Gary Thomas; +Cc: openembedded-core 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] unique -dev package 2016-04-11 19:10 ` Denys Dmytriyenko @ 2016-04-11 19:40 ` Burton, Ross 0 siblings, 0 replies; 16+ messages in thread From: Burton, Ross @ 2016-04-11 19:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Denys Dmytriyenko; +Cc: Gary Thomas, OE-core [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 760 bytes --] On 11 April 2016 at 20:10, Denys Dmytriyenko <denis@denix.org> wrote: > 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? > To save time and effort the debug packaging happens automatically in modern OE, so it's actually effort to split the debug files into multiple packages. If you split the packaging from PN-dbg to libfoo-dbg libbar-dbg, where does the debug source go? There's even more packages to follow the dependencies for now too. As much as I'd like to see 9104 disappear (being the assignee for it), I do think that supporting a single -dbg package is the right thing to do. Ross [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1234 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 16+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-04-11 19:40 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 16+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2015-04-07 12:58 [RFC PATCH 0/2] unique -dev package Robert Yang 2015-04-07 12:58 ` [RFC PATCH 1/2] xz: remove xz-dev from PACKAGES Robert Yang 2015-04-07 12:58 ` [RFC PATCH 2/2] bzip2: remove bzip2-dev " Robert Yang 2015-04-08 1:34 ` Khem Raj 2015-04-08 1:55 ` Robert Yang 2015-04-08 2:10 ` Khem Raj 2015-04-08 2:14 ` Robert Yang 2015-04-07 15:04 ` [RFC PATCH 0/2] unique -dev package Richard Purdie 2016-04-10 22:51 ` Denys Dmytriyenko 2016-04-11 1:19 ` Robert Yang 2016-04-11 1:49 ` Denys Dmytriyenko 2016-04-11 8:35 ` Richard Purdie 2016-04-11 13:42 ` Denys Dmytriyenko 2016-04-11 14:12 ` Gary Thomas 2016-04-11 19:10 ` Denys Dmytriyenko 2016-04-11 19:40 ` Burton, Ross
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.