[oe] dbg packages

[Dr. Michael Lauer]

Rolf Leggewie wrote:
> 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".

I totally agree. If I have to decide between slightly less granular
packaging of debug packages vs. tedious error-prone repetetive stating
of packaging for debug packages I gladly chose the first one.

For debugging, one or very few packages per recipe makes perfect sense to me.

Regards,

:M:
-- 
Michael 'Mickey' Lauer | IT-Freelancer | http://www.vanille-media.de