[RFC PATCH 0/2] unique -dev package

[RFC PATCH 0/2] unique -dev package

[Robert Yang]

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

[RFC PATCH 1/2] xz: remove xz-dev from PACKAGES

[Robert Yang]

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

[RFC PATCH 2/2] bzip2: remove bzip2-dev from PACKAGES

[Robert Yang]

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

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

[Richard Purdie]

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

Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] bzip2: remove bzip2-dev from PACKAGES

[Khem Raj]

> 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

Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] bzip2: remove bzip2-dev from PACKAGES

[Robert Yang]

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
>
>
>

Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] bzip2: remove bzip2-dev from PACKAGES

[Khem Raj]

> 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.

Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] bzip2: remove bzip2-dev from PACKAGES

[Robert Yang]

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

>
>
>

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

[Denys Dmytriyenko]

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

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

[Robert Yang]

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

>

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

[Denys Dmytriyenko]

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

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

[Richard Purdie]

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

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

[Denys Dmytriyenko]

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

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

[Gary Thomas]

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
------------------------------------------------------------

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

[Denys Dmytriyenko]

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

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

[Burton, Ross]

[-- 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 --]