[OE-core] [PATCH] alsa-lib: remove non PN based -dev packages

[Huang, Jie (Jackie)]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Purdie [mailto:richard.purdie at linuxfoundation.org]
> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 5:25 PM
> To: Koen Kooi
> Cc: Huang, Jie (Jackie); OE-core; RIFENBARK, SCOTT
> Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] alsa-lib: remove non PN based -dev packages
> 
> On Mon, 2014-07-28 at 10:51 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote:
> > Op 28 jul. 2014, om 08:49 heeft Huang, Jie (Jackie) <Jackie.Huang at windriver.com> het volgende
> geschreven:
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Koen Kooi [mailto:koen at dominion.thruhere.net]
> > >> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 2:30 PM
> > >> To: Huang, Jie (Jackie)
> > >> Cc: OE-core; Richard Purdie
> > >> Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] alsa-lib: remove non PN based -dev
> > >> packages
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Op 25 jul. 2014, om 12:05 heeft jackie.huang at windriver.com het volgende geschreven:
> > >>
> > >>> From: Jackie Huang <jackie.huang at windriver.com>
> > >>>
> > >>> All dev related items should be packaged in the core PN-dev
> > >>> package not in seperate packages.
> > >>
> > >> What's the upgrade path here for image and users that have
> > >> 'alsa-dev' installed? Looks like there are
> > >
> > > My patch is removing 'alsa-dev' and all related files goes into
> > > '${PN}-dev' (PN=alsa-lib here), so users need to install alsa-lib-dev instead of alsa-dev.
> >
> > *sigh* So you have no upgrade path for situations where 'alsa-dev' is
> > already installed or listed in a packagegroup or image. Worse, you
> > don't even understand the problem :/
> >
> > >
> > >> now 2 conflicting packages, 'alsa-dev' in the feeds and
> > >> 'alsa-lib-dev' on OE, without and
> > >
> > > Only 'alsa-lib-dev' now with my patch, so no conflicts.
> >
> > Hahahahahaha you are really funny.
> 
> I appreciate there is a problem here and we need to fix that. There is also an education issue, people
> who don't know much about it don't appreciate the struggles of someone maintaining package feeds.

Sorry that I got misunderstanding about the commets since I didn't know much the issue, I appreciate that
and will send another patch to fix it since this one is already merged.

Thanks,
Jackie

> 
> Perhaps someone could write a short section for the docs about the issues here? In future when this
> kind of problem comes up, we can then at least point at the manual section to explain it.
> 
> Currently, most docs come from the "same old people", I'm partly writing this to remind people that
> others can submit them and that they can help massively in educating people.
> 
> They don't even need to be proper patches against the docs, just write a few paragraphs, send it Scott
> Rifenbark's way and he can usually do something with it. He tends to reword things so the manual has
> a consistent tone and style anyway so it needn't be word perfect either, its the content that matters
> (and that is the part Scott cannot do).
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Richard