Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] unique -dev package

[Denys Dmytriyenko <denis@denix.org>]

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 09:35:48AM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
> 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?

Thanks, Richard.

I was updating some of our old recipes to work with the latest code and had to 
replace dependencies on libblah-dev to blah-dev as well as -staticdev and -dbg 
in several places. When tried to dig up any relevant discussion on this matter 
either as a discussion or clear explanation of the problem this causes, I 
couldn't find any, hence my inquiry.

-- 
Denys