[OE-core] [CONSOLIDATED PULL 01/20] bitbake.conf: Create staticlibs pacakge for static libraries

[Koen Kooi]

Op 6 jun 2011, om 18:50 heeft Saul Wold het volgende geschreven:

> On 06/06/2011 03:50 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
>> On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 07:55 +0100, Phil Blundell wrote:
>>> On Sun, 2011-06-05 at 23:44 -0700, Saul Wold wrote:
>>>>  SECTION_${PN}-dev = "devel"
>>>>  ALLOW_EMPTY_${PN}-dev = "1"
>>>>  RDEPENDS_${PN}-dev = "${PN} (= ${EXTENDPKGV})"
>>>> 
>>>> +FILES_${PN}-staticlibs = "${libdir}/*.a ${base_libdir}/*.a"
>>>> +SECTION_${PN}-staticlibs = "devel"
>>>> +RDEPENDS_${PN}-staticlibs = "${PN}-dev (= ${EXTENDPV})"
>>> 
>>> This should be ${EXTENDPKGV}, right?
>> 
>> It should.
>> 
>> I'm also not 100% convinced I like "-staticlibs" vs "-staticdev" as it
>> doesn't feel consistent.
>> 
>> The user gets exposed to these at the package manager level and will
>> "xxx install xxx-staticX". The end result they'll get will be the
>> installation of everything they need for static development (i.e. the
>> -dev packages will get pulled in for the headers). This means they don't
>> just result in the static libs as there are dependencies there. From the
>> user perspective they are therefore packages for static development, not
>> just the static libraries...
>> 
> Richard,
> 
> I agree that they are for development and that by their nature they have a dependency on the Development packages, but they contain libs only, not all the development headers or tools, I think its therefore mis-leading to call the package staticdev since they do not contain all the development bits (they might depend on all the bits).  It's a subtle but important distinction.
> 
> As was pointed out earlier Fedora packages static libraries in a "-static" package, but this had other implications for OE due to -static already being in use (for busybox and mplayer), I am not sure that this is not a problem for OE-Core, I would need to investigate.  Meego also seems to use the Fedora standard with "-static".

I just brought that up as the only 2 points of conflict I remember, I still like the '-static' name. But I'm biased since I did this in -dev a while ago :)