[oe] <package>-static name conflict with some recipes

[Frans Meulenbroeks]

2010/5/28 Khem Raj <raj.khem at gmail.com>:
> Hi
>
> I have seen that we have parallel recipes for some applications for static
> build
> called package-static.bb like below
>
> ./dialog/dialog-static_1.1-20080819.bb
> ./busybox/busybox-static_1.2.1.bb
> ./busybox/busybox-static_1.11.3.bb
> ./kexec-tools/kexec-tools-klibc-static_1.101.bb
> ./kexec-tools/kexec-tools-klibc-static_2.0.1.bb
> ./zaurus-utils/nandlogical-klibc-static_1.0.0.bb
> ./klibc/klibc-utils-static_1.5.15+1.5.16.bb
> ./klibc/klibc-utils-static_1.5.18.bb
> ./klibc/klibc-utils-static_1.5.15.bb
> ./klibc/klibc-utils-static_1.5.bb
> ./klibc/klibc-utils-static_1.5.17.bb
> ./skype/skype-static_2.0.0.72.bb
> ./udev/udev-static-devices.bb
> ./udev/udev-static_124.bb
>
> Now they conflict with the automatic package that we generate to bundle
> static libraries. Since the the packages which bundle static libraries
> are essentially development packages may be they should be called
>
> <package>-dev-static instead of <package>-static
>
> IMO that will avoid the conflict and also clarify the package content
> a bit
>
> Thoughts?

I have no problems with the rename but wouldn't it be nice to have a
conf flag to specify if you want to build static or dynamic  (not that
I know how to implement it).
Alternately we could cook up something like BBCLASSEXTEND = "static".
(not sure how to do that either).

The idea is to give the user a choice whether to get a static or
dynamic linked package.

Frans.

PS: helloworld is also a static package (despite the name not having -static)