Re: dbg packages

[Paul Sokolovsky <pmiscml@gmail.com>]

Hello Richard,

Tuesday, July 10, 2007, 1:51:07 PM, you wrote:

> On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 11:21 +0200, Dr. Michael Lauer wrote:
>> 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.

> I also agree for what its worth, having one -dbg package per recipe
> isn't really a hardship since when you're debugging you usually have
> enough space not to worry about the slight extra space usage. In the
> past I've gone for the one -dbg package approach when packaging apps.

> Automating the debug package generation would be good. The best way to
> do it would probably be to allow full regexps in FILES rather than the
> existing rather limited python globs. Can we convert and maintain
> backwards compatibility?

  Let's add REFILES then? But mind empty dirs issue. Maybe for -dbg
it's worth to just add a specialized task? (REFILES are useful on their
own of course).

> Cheers,

> Richard




-- 
Best regards,
 Paul                            mailto:pmiscml@gmail.com