From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.pbcl.net ([88.198.119.4] helo=hetzner.pbcl.net) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QbrYA-0007Zj-Te for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 11:59:15 +0200 Received: from cambridge.roku.com ([81.142.160.137] helo=[172.30.1.145]) by hetzner.pbcl.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1QbrUc-00011E-Ji for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Wed, 29 Jun 2011 11:55:34 +0200 From: Phil Blundell To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer In-Reply-To: <044DC375-E0BA-44D9-A063-9BB8E11F7742@dominion.thruhere.net> References: <044DC375-E0BA-44D9-A063-9BB8E11F7742@dominion.thruhere.net> Organization: Phil Blundell Consulting Ltd Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 10:55:25 +0100 Message-ID: <1309341325.15156.232.camel@phil-desktop> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.3 Subject: Re: Gstreamer packaging X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 09:59:15 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Wed, 2011-06-29 at 11:33 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote: > So the new systems does the following: > > * split out each plugin as gst-plugin- > * split out each lib as lib > > So both plugins and libraries have a stable package name (barring plugin renames, e.g. flvdemux -> flv). Package feeds and upgrades finally work as expected Agreed, I think this is about the only reasonable thing to do. The way that the gstreamer folks bundle up their plugins for distribution, and particularly the semi-arbitrary split between -base, -good and -bad, is not especially helpful for consumers of those packages. In the past I have been strongly tempted to just stick all the plugins (with the possible exception of -ugly, which might require a bit of ENTERPRISE_DISTRO care) into a single recipe so that at least you always know which recipe needs building to get a given plugin. That would obviously lead to more build time but I think it is probably a good tradeoff in this situation. In an ideal world it would be nice for all the plugins to be packaged independently a la Xorg, but I have no idea whether the gstreamer folks would be receptive to that idea. > OE .dev has a slightly different approach where you manually go > through deploy and see what got generated by who and plug that into > PROVIDES. I'm not a big fan of that, but it eliminates those scary > messages. I guess that does also work, but I didn't like the patch when it first went into .dev and I am still not very fond of it. p.