From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from 93-97-173-237.zone5.bethere.co.uk ([93.97.173.237] helo=tim.rpsys.net) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QgwQM-0007PI-AM for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 12:12:10 +0200 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tim.rpsys.net (8.13.6/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p6DA8CGv028247 for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 11:08:12 +0100 Received: from tim.rpsys.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (tim.rpsys.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 28111-01 for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 11:08:08 +0100 (BST) Received: from [192.168.3.10] ([192.168.3.10]) (authenticated bits=0) by tim.rpsys.net (8.13.6/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p6DA7xY0028237 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 13 Jul 2011 11:08:03 +0100 From: Richard Purdie To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 11:07:56 +0100 Message-ID: <1310551676.20015.1094.camel@rex> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.2 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rpsys.net Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 00/25] Static Library Updated 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, 13 Jul 2011 10:12:10 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Saul, I know we touched on this when we've talked but I'm not sure you saw what I was getting and and its probably better to ask this question on the list anyhow. Fundamentally, is it useful to have a ton of xxx-staticdev packages? In a few key cases split -dev packages are useful (qt, eds, gcc spring to mind). In general however they probably aren't and often no thought has been given into splitting them out. One good indicator is whether the headers are split up. If not, then there are likely issues. If split -dev packages aren't useful, its likely that split staticdev packages are also less useful. I'm really wondering if there ever is a use case where you'd need the individual staticdev packages or you'd have the disk space to manage installing the full thing? Taking wireless-tools as an example, its going to a lot of effort to change the default PACKAGES and create a libiw-dev package. It drops the wireless-tools-dev package in the original, your patch changes this so we have both a wireless-tools-dev and a libiw-dev package. Perhaps instead we should just add: PKG_${PN}-dev = "libiw-dev" PKG_${PN}-staticdev = "libiw-staticdev" ? Do we even care about that renaming? Likewise, does it need two separate docs packages? or separate -dbg packages? We really need to work out the approach to these fundamental questions before we can then look at the series... I think I'm in favour of minimising the number of split -dev/-dbg/-staticdev/-doc packages out there and hence I therefore am uncomfortable with the direction the series is taking. Cheers, Richard