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

[Frans Meulenbroeks]

2010/10/26 Andrea Adami <andrea.adami at gmail.com>:
> BUMP
>
> only a few recipes remaining.
> First question is, are those -static really needed? If so, then please
> propose a renaming.
>
> Regards
>
> Andrea
>
> On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 7:27 AM, Khem Raj <raj.khem at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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
> DONE > ./kexec-tools/kexec-tools-klibc-static_1.101.bb
> DONE> ./kexec-tools/kexec-tools-klibc-static_2.0.1.bb
> DONE> ./zaurus-utils/nandlogical-klibc-static_1.0.0.bb
> DONE> ./klibc/klibc-utils-static_1.5.15+1.5.16.bb
> DONE> ./klibc/klibc-utils-static_1.5.18.bb
> DONE> ./klibc/klibc-utils-static_1.5.15.bb
> DONE> ./klibc/klibc-utils-static_1.5.bb
> DONE> ./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?
>>
>> -Khem
>>

I'm inclined to go to -dev-static for generated packages, so we can
have -static recipes.
One of the things still on my to do list is creating a static image
(to see if it saves space).

Frans