[oe] Gstreamer and rpath

[Richard Purdie]

On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 19:00 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote:
> Michael Krelin schreef:
> >> Michael Krelin schreef:
> >>> I'm not taking the symlink workaround seriously, because inventing one
> >>> workaround to get rid of the other isn't going to get us anywhere.
> >> Packaged-staging v1 is using that symlink approach and it doesn't help a lot. Hence the
> >> need for v2 :)
> > 
> > Just about time ;-)
> > 
> > No matter how soon we can move to sysroot approach, I think making
> > staging resemble filesystem is the right thing to do, anyway...
> 
> Indeed. I suspect most of our packages could handle that (autotools, qmake and distutils
> based ones) easily. The big question is:
> 
>   How are we going to do it?
> 
> Are we going to declare another ".dev is broken" period, a branch, a branch with a small
> amount of packages like org.oe.packaged-staging?

I'm actually semi against forcing staging to look like an image. The
fact gcc requires this for its sysroot option is a sign that they
haven't got this right yet.

With packaged staging we need to decide which way we go, separate
staging packages or use the same ones as we use for images.

My personal gut feeling is that separate ones will work better. They
also mean we can handle the extra staging files like pkgmaps and perhaps
handle multi machine easier.

I think if we try to make image packages fit, we'll end up having to
make hack after hack and end up with something less maintainable.

Note this doesn't mean we shouldn't try and simplify package staging
tasks. Ideally I'd like to see one do_install task working for both
staging and the normal packages.

Regards,

Richard