From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [66.249.92.175] (helo=ug-out-1314.google.com) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1I8FKX-0006Xe-QE for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Tue, 10 Jul 2007 15:00:51 +0200 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id i24so1336432ugd for ; Tue, 10 Jul 2007 05:54:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.86.59.3 with SMTP id h3mr102025fga.1184072097496; Tue, 10 Jul 2007 05:54:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?192.168.20.110? ( [82.193.98.21]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id y2sm58527273mug.2007.07.10.05.54.55 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 10 Jul 2007 05:54:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 15:54:38 +0300 From: Paul Sokolovsky X-Mailer: The Bat! (v3.64.01 Christmas Edition) UNREG / CD5BF9353B3B7091 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <602819948.20070710155438@gmail.com> To: Richard Purdie In-Reply-To: <1184064667.6435.45.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <126613333.20070709215755@vanille-media.de> <309753579.20070710112118@vanille-media.de> <1184064667.6435.45.camel@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: dbg packages X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 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: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 13:01:08 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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