From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [85.37.17.114] (helo=smtp-out114.alice.it) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Mp7o4-0007Ih-W0 for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Sat, 19 Sep 2009 23:49:28 +0200 Received: from FBCMMO03.fbc.local ([192.168.68.197]) by smtp-out114.alice.it with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Sat, 19 Sep 2009 23:48:49 +0200 Received: from FBCMCL01B08.fbc.local ([192.168.171.46]) by FBCMMO03.fbc.local with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Sat, 19 Sep 2009 23:48:49 +0200 Received: from [192.168.1.107] ([80.117.40.142]) by FBCMCL01B08.fbc.local with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Sat, 19 Sep 2009 23:48:47 +0200 From: GNUtoo To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org In-Reply-To: <1253188893.12689.556.camel@mill.internal.reciva.com> References: <20090917054034.GB5465@denix.org> <1253188893.12689.556.camel@mill.internal.reciva.com> Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 23:48:46 +0200 Message-Id: <1253396926.1456.14.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.24.4 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Sep 2009 21:48:48.0049 (UTC) FILETIME=[F7D55A10:01CA3972] X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 85.37.17.114 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: GNUtoo@no-log.org X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:20:07 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on linuxtogo.org); Unknown failure Subject: Re: [RFC] -dbg for static libraries? X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Sep 2009 21:49:28 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thu, 2009-09-17 at 13:01 +0100, Phil Blundell wrote: > On Thu, 2009-09-17 at 01:40 -0400, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote: > > Would it make sense to package stripped version of a static lib into -dev and > > the full version into corresponding -dbg? > > I'm not sure that you'd want the debugging .a file in -dbg itself, since > the -dbg packages are for installation on the target device and the .a > libraries would be useless there. > > Punting the debug versions of the .a libraries into a new package > (-static-dbg or some such) wouldn't be a bad idea. Or, for SDK > purposes, you could even consider ditching the .a libraries altogether > for packages that have a .so since virtually nobody is going to be doing > static linking in this day and age. I often do static linking for different reasons: *different libc on the target(like with android for instance) *debugging(like in the case where all shared libs segfaulted on mips +uclibc,I needed a static gdb,a static strace etc...) Denis