[oe] dbg packages

[Rolf Leggewie]

Koen Kooi wrote:
> Packaging is tedious, but let's not automate doing the wrong thing ;)

I certainly agree with the general statement.  But I wonder if in this
case it would not be OK to have just one big -dbg package per bb file
even if there are more subpackages.  Going granular is certainly nice
but I wonder if just having a dbg package suffices even if contains more
than necessary.  I guess the -dbg packages should not be necessary most
of the time.

My vote would go for "bigger size" if it means "easier packaging right
now instead of later" unless that entails "something breaks".