From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dan.rpsys.net (5751f4a1.skybroadband.com [87.81.244.161]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14B786011B for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 08:35:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dan.rpsys.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id u3B8Zrgt028281; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 09:35:53 +0100 Received: from dan.rpsys.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (dan.rpsys.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id TfgZGtJzRbLh; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 09:35:53 +0100 (BST) Received: from hex ([192.168.3.34]) (authenticated bits=0) by dan.rpsys.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id u3B8ZmIN028258 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT); Mon, 11 Apr 2016 09:35:50 +0100 Message-ID: <1460363748.9308.30.camel@linuxfoundation.org> From: Richard Purdie To: Denys Dmytriyenko , Robert Yang Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 09:35:48 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20160411014945.GL16135@denix.org> References: <20160410225130.GK16135@denix.org> <570AFBA4.40201@windriver.com> <20160411014945.GL16135@denix.org> X-Mailer: Evolution 3.16.5-1ubuntu3.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Cc: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] unique -dev package X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 08:35:56 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sun, 2016-04-10 at 21:49 -0400, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote: > On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 09:19:32AM +0800, Robert Yang wrote: > > On 04/11/2016 06:51 AM, Denys Dmytriyenko wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 07, 2015 at 05:58:13AM -0700, Robert Yang wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > I think that one recipe should only have one -dev package, I'm > > > > not sure > > > > whether this is right or not, please feel free to give your > > > > comments, we > > > > > > I know it is already 1 year since this change. But I can't seem > > > to find any > > > discussion or any explanation to why this change was required and > > > what > > > specific problem it was supposed to fix. Please point me to a > > > clear reasoning > > > of this change. Thanks. > > > > There is only one source package, so there should be only one pack > > of header > > files, dev libs, and so on, and they should be placed in a uniq > > pkg. > > Since you are using "should" twice in the same sentence, can you > please point > me to a ratified RFC? I couldn't seem to see the history of this discussion in my mail folder but I do remember some patches along these lines. The reason for a single -dev package is that the "package chain" functions we have assumes this. I know there are some specific cases where we do have multiple -dev packages (qt4, gcc-runtime) but they are very much in the minority and are special cases. I'm definitely on record as saying the depchains code needs revisiting and redoing, preferably with a structured rethink so that we can better handle situations like this. Until that is done, multiple -dev packages can cause issues and we did remove some where there didn't seem to be any real benefit. Which case is causing problems for you? Cheers, Richard