[OE-core] [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
------------------------------------------------------------