From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lo.gmane.org ([80.91.229.12]) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OHt92-0007Ef-Cu for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Fri, 28 May 2010 08:34:16 +0200 Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OHt52-0003fT-9B for openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org; Fri, 28 May 2010 08:30:04 +0200 Received: from s55917625.adsl.wanadoo.nl ([85.145.118.37]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 28 May 2010 08:30:04 +0200 Received: from k.kooi by s55917625.adsl.wanadoo.nl with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 28 May 2010 08:30:04 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org connect(): No such file or directory From: Koen Kooi Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 08:28:16 +0200 Message-ID: References: <20100528052720.GA15949@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: s55917625.adsl.wanadoo.nl User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.10) Gecko/20100512 Shredder/3.0.6pre In-Reply-To: <20100528052720.GA15949@gmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 80.91.229.12 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: gcho-openembedded-devel@m.gmane.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on discovery X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS,URI_HEX autolearn=no version=3.2.5 X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:20:07 +0000) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on linuxtogo.org) Subject: Re: -static name conflict with some recipes 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: Fri, 28 May 2010 06:34:16 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 28-05-10 07:27, Khem Raj 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 > ./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 > > -dev-static instead of -static > > IMO that will avoid the conflict and also clarify the package content > a bit > > Thoughts? Fine by me, as long as the usermanual gets updated as well. regards, Koen -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin) iD8DBQFL/2KAMkyGM64RGpERAggiAJ42dgqQTw1Lvkn9falV7gHh6Oxa4QCgovkL +wtAjJHnqEXObVlm7nAW77Y= =dbFD -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----