[OE-core] [PATCH] xorg-proto-common: allow the empty package

[Huang, Jie (Jackie)]

Thanks for the explanation. I think you’re suggesting that we do nothing for such issue or
just tell the user to use PN-dev for this kind of packages, right?

Thanks,
Jackie

From: Burton, Ross [mailto:ross.burton at intel.com]
Sent: Friday, July 03, 2015 5:39 PM
To: Huang, Jie (Jackie)
Cc: Martin Jansa; OE-core
Subject: Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] xorg-proto-common: allow the empty package


On 3 July 2015 at 10:34, Huang, Jie (Wind River) <jackie.huang at windriver.com<mailto:jackie.huang at windriver.com>> wrote:

I see your point, I think we can make the empty PN rdepends on PN-dev(but the dev-deps QA check need to be skipped),

then when user try to add PN, PN-dev will also be installed, so it’s not an useless empty package.

bigreqsproto is development headers.  Therefore its in the bigreqsproto-dev package.  This is not hard to understand, nor should we start filling the feeds up with empty packages just to please users who can't verify the package names.

Didn't we have this discussion a few months ago?  There are some recipes where PN not existing is unusual (avahi was a good example, and I had a partial branch to fix that), but for recipes which entirely consist of development files, there only being a development package is reasonable and predictable.

(If I *had* to do this, I'd have RPROVIDES_${PN}-dev += ${PN})

I see that openssh has similar situation, PN is allowed empty, but it rdepends on “${PN}-scp ${PN}-ssh ${PN}-sshd ${PN}-keygen”.
That's a different use case entirely: pulling in the entire SSH suite in a single package whilst still allowing resource-constrained or secure systems to pull in only the parts they want.

Ross
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openembedded.org/pipermail/openembedded-core/attachments/20150703/1a636fe8/attachment-0002.html>