<package>-static name conflict with some recipes

<package>-static name conflict with some recipes

[Khem Raj]

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

<package>-dev-static instead of <package>-static

IMO that will avoid the conflict and also clarify the package content
a bit

Thoughts?

-Khem

Re: <package>-static name conflict with some recipes

[Frans Meulenbroeks]

2010/5/28 Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>:
> 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
>
> <package>-dev-static instead of <package>-static
>
> IMO that will avoid the conflict and also clarify the package content
> a bit
>
> Thoughts?

I have no problems with the rename but wouldn't it be nice to have a
conf flag to specify if you want to build static or dynamic  (not that
I know how to implement it).
Alternately we could cook up something like BBCLASSEXTEND = "static".
(not sure how to do that either).

The idea is to give the user a choice whether to get a static or
dynamic linked package.

Frans.

PS: helloworld is also a static package (despite the name not having -static)

Re: <package>-static name conflict with some recipes

[Koen Kooi]

-----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
> 
> <package>-dev-static instead of <package>-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-----

Re: <package>-static name conflict with some recipes

[Andrea Adami]

>><package>-dev-static instead of <package>-static
>>IMO that will avoid the conflict and also clarify the package content a bit


These at least won't give any build problem (tested, there is no
$PN-*). Absolutely not -dev, just compiled aganst klibc statically.

./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

AFAIK there is no way to understand if e.g. kexec-static is built
against klibc or *libc...
Do you mean rename the package e.g. kexec-tools-klibc and only package
the -static bits?


These instead will surely give headhaches...

./dialog/dialog-static_1.1-20080819.bb
./busybox/busybox-static_1.2.1.bb
./busybox/busybox-static_1.11.3.bb

./skype/skype-static_2.0.0.72.bb
./udev/udev-static-devices.bb
./udev/udev-static_124.bb

I experienced strange tasks commistion building udev-static:
do_install task was taken from udev!
Renaming to udev-compat-static fixed the things. WIP.


Regards

Andrea

Re: <package>-static name conflict with some recipes

[Andrea Adami]

Bump

> ./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

I renamed the a.m. recipes: please check what's remaining after the
massive purge of last week...

Regards

Andrea

Re: <package>-static name conflict with some recipes

[Andrea Adami]

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@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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
>

Re: <package>-static name conflict with some recipes

[Frans Meulenbroeks]

2010/10/26 Andrea Adami <andrea.adami@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@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